How old is the earth?

[Alive]

What do you mean?

I understand what he is saying I I agree, but wait for him to respond.

 

[EarlyActs]

Creation ex nihilo is indicated, I believe, in Genesis 1:1. True, it may be taken as introduction to the following verses or a summary of their events, but it also may be taken as a statement in itself, that precedes the events following. Thus, yes, it includes the creation of the "materials of earth".

(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

Thanks for your notes.

Follow the matter of light/illumination, and you'll see that the local system cannot be meant when light appears on Day 1. It has to be starlight from elsewhere. As Lennox says, it had to be in transit before Day 1 to arrive Day 1. As for the materials, the indicators are there, even in the text. Why would the earth, for ex., already be there but unformed?

Literarily, look at the comparison of ch 28. Pre-existing conditions are given about Rachel and then the text says Rachel was beautiful. Was she beautiful out of nowhere? Was she just beautiful that moment? 2 Peter 3 has earth in pre-conditions. Many of the verbal passages of Genesis (1--39, transmitted verbally) have such extensive backstory or pre-conditions. Traced in the cataclysm account, it adds up to many years.

Heb 11 'made out of what is not visible' can still be true by virtue of the fact of God making a mass energy release that is random and lifeless before the event called creation week. It must be explained because it is not, nor can be, God himself.

Please bear in mind I am saying things are still much different from conventional evolution. The mass energy release (possibly the 'spreading' of Ps 104 and Is 45) are lifeless. Creation week is still intact, recent, and thriving when completed, but is not the distant universe. The earth is simply there from the mass release before hand; the text uses the verb 'to place' about all the local objects--because the earth is already there. Then there is the destruction theme to be studied (formless and void usually have to do with a punishment).

Creation and cataclysm only affected the outer 0.001% of the crust of earth. The deepest oil reserves are 16,000 ft. All fossils are much shallower. Peter describes things this way, too. But the coming end of the earth is not like this, and is the whole.

 

[EarlyActs]

What do you mean?

Creation ex nihilo is indicated, I believe, in Genesis 1:1. True, it may be taken as introduction to the following verses or a summary of their events, but it also may be taken as a statement in itself, that precedes the events following. Thus, yes, it includes the creation of the "materials of earth".

(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

Re already existing circumstances. 'Formless and void' introduce the idea of something in terrible condition, actually, and the term for darkness in 1:2 sometimes carries 'abandonment' or 'useless.'

Another important pre-existing consideration is Satan. Was he just evil the moment he shows in the script in 3:1? Obviously something had happened somewhere else, and earlier. Compared to the dazzling description of Is 14, 28, he is quite humiliated, and his track is downward: he is about to be confined to the ground, and then he is going to have his head crushed. A loser.

This does not mean humans were evil yet, it means that something evil happened in the past, among higher beings; cp Ps 29. We know from 2 Peter 2 that Peter said, past tense, that some defiant beings were punished by being placed in 'tartarus', using a term from the Greek account THE DEUCALION about the Titans. Hmmm. A few passages mention those who in the depths of the earth, in the cities under (the surface) of the earth. It does seem like something else has been going on here.

 

[ChristB4us]

Some Christians think the earth is between 6,000 and 15,000 years old, coinciding with the Neolithic Age. Astronomers think it is 4.5 billion years old. Here is an attempt to resolve this incongruity.

Jesus turned water into wine in John 2:

How old was this wine?

If you asked the human observers/witnesses, the servants would say a few seconds old.

The story continued:

If you asked the expert, the banquet master, "How old is this wine?" He would say it was months or even years old.

So which answer is true?

Both are true, depending on the perspective. The supernatural perspective tells us that it was only a second old. The natural perspective tells us that it was at least some months old.

Similarly, in Genesis 1:

The truth is that Jesus made the wine good in seconds and so He also created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and said it was good.
The problem with science is that they look at everything pretty much through the lens of the evolution theory rather than at the evidence with His words in tow.

Like the creation of the heavens did not occur until day 4 where He created the heavenly objects in the heavens and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that day and so by His word, the heavens were created and her lights were shining that day on earth. So science cannot determine the age of the earth by how fast light travels when like the wine, God commanded her lights to shine from those newly formed universe on the earth that 4th day.

Earth did not exist on day one. Time as in "the beginning" was created that first day with its evening and morning that first day by the light that was created.

God started to create the earth by creating gravity ( that firmament that divides the water ) to divide the water thus winding up with a water planet ( one firmament ) and the upper atmosphere ( the other firmament ).

But note how God did not say it was good that 2nd day? That is because He was not done creating the earth until day 3 when He laid down the foundations of the earth Job 38:4 which should dispel the false notion that earth was devastated and under water.

You cannot have God resting on the 7th day from all His creation if we continue with that erroneous narrative of believing God created the heavens and the earth and time passed before actual day one for then that would not be the truth for Him resting on that 7th day from all his creation.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

That false science, the evolution theory, is being used by the devil and the world to cover up all evidence of the Biblical global flood.

Seeing how certain “facts” in that false science called the evolution theory, keeps getting back-peddled and rewritten, when we leave the word of God alone, by the grace of God and His help, mankind will find that the Bible was right from the beginning all along.

The dinosaurs had existed with mankind. The behemoth in Job 40:15–17 fits the description of a dinosaur where in verse 17, its tail moves like a cedar which is a tree.

And the latter part of that verse 17 testifies to the male dinosaurs sex organs as being internal which “science” only discovered in the last decade.

So since the Bible testify that the behemoth as that dinosaur that existed with mankind, then there would be evidence of mankind having seen a dinosaur, right?

At this link is a carving of a stegosaurus on an archway in an ancient ruin in Cambodia.


Dinosaur of Ta Prohm
Hoax, mistake, or evidence of dinosaurs in human times?
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/dinosaur-angkor-wat


That false science called the evolution theory that the accuracy of their carbon dating results is based on the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, thereby overlooking the Biblical global flood for WHY their dating results ARE NOT accurate and conflicting.

A living mollusks has been carbon dated as 2,300 years old dead. Contenders argue that science do not carbon date living things, but they can deny it all they want; it is a fact that science had done it.

Some dinosaurs fossils have been carbon dated as 1,000 years old while other, 100,000 years old. Again contenders will say that they do not even bother testing dinosaurs fossilized bones but again, all they have to do is search the internet and find that science did in deed tested them.

These 2 points proves what the devil is using that false science for, to cover up all evidence of the Biblical global flood.

Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, debunked gradual macroevolution because of the huge gap in the fossil records of “transitional fossils” by proposing “punctuated equilibrium” or “rapid macroevolution”.

From that proposed theory, he surmised that an explosion had to occur in the fossil record in the Cambrian Period and that a global flood was responsible. When I brought up that point, contenders would say that he never said it was a global flood that covered the mountains and they are right. Try as I might, I could not find any indication of how high his proposed global flood was.

BUT

At various mountaintops all over the world, including Mount Everest, there are marine fossils. That false science explanation is that the tectonic plates caused the mountains to rise from the sea.

BUT YET AGAIN

At the Andes Mountains, fossilized whale bones with other marine fossils were found buried TOGETHER with fossilized land animal bones in one smooth gradient, meaning, they were both fossilized under that same sedimentary layer.

While they tried to explain it away with tectonic plate upheaval, you will note that they have no explanation for how the land animal fossils were found buried with them.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/...n-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html
One scientist testified that this was an unusual find because such tectonic plates upheaval would destroy fossil beds.

''We are in some haste to prepare a paper describing our discovery,'' Dr. Novacek said. ''In science, it is important sometimes to stake one's claim.''…

Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils. ~~ end of quote

This is what happens when science keeps looking at everything through the lens of the evolution theory as missing the obvious since there are fossil beds all over the world at various mountaintops.

So the evolution theory is a lie and the Bible is true. No need to change the Bible for that false science.

1 Timothy 6:120 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Ame

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

What do you mean?

I mean that EVERYTHING except God himself is caused by God, to include every principle and fact, to include even reality itself.

The only "raw fact" ("base fact") is God himself. Only God is self-existent.

Anything less is only, at best, "a god".

 

[EarlyActs]

The truth is that Jesus made the wine good in seconds and so He also created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and said it was good.
The problem with science is that they look at everything pretty much through the lens of the evolution theory rather than at the evidence with His words in tow.

Like the creation of the heavens did not occur until day 4 where He created the heavenly objects in the heavens and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that day and so by His word, the heavens were created and her lights were shining that day on earth. So science cannot determine the age of the earth by how fast light travels when like the wine, God commanded her lights to shine from those newly formed universe on the earth that 4th day.

Earth did not exist on day one. Time as in "the beginning" was created that first day with its evening and morning that first day by the light that was created.

God started to create the earth by creating gravity ( that firmament that divides the water ) to divide the water thus winding up with a water planet ( one firmament ) and the upper atmosphere ( the other firmament ).

But note how God did not say it was good that 2nd day? That is because He was not done creating the earth until day 3 when He laid down the foundations of the earth Job 38:4 which should dispel the false notion that earth was devastated and under water.

You cannot have God resting on the 7th day from all His creation if we continue with that erroneous narrative of believing God created the heavens and the earth and time passed before actual day one for then that would not be the truth for Him resting on that 7th day from all his creation.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

That false science, the evolution theory, is being used by the devil and the world to cover up all evidence of the Biblical global flood.

Seeing how certain “facts” in that false science called the evolution theory, keeps getting back-peddled and rewritten, when we leave the word of God alone, by the grace of God and His help, mankind will find that the Bible was right from the beginning all along.

The dinosaurs had existed with mankind. The behemoth in Job 40:15–17 fits the description of a dinosaur where in verse 17, its tail moves like a cedar which is a tree.

And the latter part of that verse 17 testifies to the male dinosaurs sex organs as being internal which “science” only discovered in the last decade.

So since the Bible testify that the behemoth as that dinosaur that existed with mankind, then there would be evidence of mankind having seen a dinosaur, right?

At this link is a carving of a stegosaurus on an archway in an ancient ruin in Cambodia.


Dinosaur of Ta Prohm
Hoax, mistake, or evidence of dinosaurs in human times?
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/dinosaur-angkor-wat


That false science called the evolution theory that the accuracy of their carbon dating results is based on the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, thereby overlooking the Biblical global flood for WHY their dating results ARE NOT accurate and conflicting.

A living mollusks has been carbon dated as 2,300 years old dead. Contenders argue that science do not carbon date living things, but they can deny it all they want; it is a fact that science had done it.

Some dinosaurs fossils have been carbon dated as 1,000 years old while other, 100,000 years old. Again contenders will say that they do not even bother testing dinosaurs fossilized bones but again, all they have to do is search the internet and find that science did in deed tested them.

These 2 points proves what the devil is using that false science for, to cover up all evidence of the Biblical global flood.

Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, debunked gradual macroevolution because of the huge gap in the fossil records of “transitional fossils” by proposing “punctuated equilibrium” or “rapid macroevolution”.

From that proposed theory, he surmised that an explosion had to occur in the fossil record in the Cambrian Period and that a global flood was responsible. When I brought up that point, contenders would say that he never said it was a global flood that covered the mountains and they are right. Try as I might, I could not find any indication of how high his proposed global flood was.

BUT

At various mountaintops all over the world, including Mount Everest, there are marine fossils. That false science explanation is that the tectonic plates caused the mountains to rise from the sea.

BUT YET AGAIN

At the Andes Mountains, fossilized whale bones with other marine fossils were found buried TOGETHER with fossilized land animal bones in one smooth gradient, meaning, they were both fossilized under that same sedimentary layer.

While they tried to explain it away with tectonic plate upheaval, you will note that they have no explanation for how the land animal fossils were found buried with them.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/...n-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html
One scientist testified that this was an unusual find because such tectonic plates upheaval would destroy fossil beds.

''We are in some haste to prepare a paper describing our discovery,'' Dr. Novacek said. ''In science, it is important sometimes to stake one's claim.''…

Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils. ~~ end of quote

This is what happens when science keeps looking at everything through the lens of the evolution theory as missing the obvious since there are fossil beds all over the world at various mountaintops.

So the evolution theory is a lie and the Bible is true. No need to change the Bible for that false science.

1 Timothy 6:120 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Ame

Earth was there on Day 1

 

[EarlyActs]

makesends said:
(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

I mean that EVERYTHING except God himself is caused by God, to include every principle and fact, to include even reality itself.

The only "raw fact" ("base fact") is God himself. Only God is self-existent.

Anything less is only, at best, "a god".

Coukd God do a mass energy release, aka, spread the universe like Ps 104, Is 45?

 

[makesends]

Re already existing circumstances. 'Formless and void' introduce the idea of something in terrible condition, actually, and the term for darkness in 1:2 sometimes carries 'abandonment' or 'useless.'

Another important pre-existing consideration is Satan. Was he just evil the moment he shows in the script in 3:1? Obviously something had happened somewhere else, and earlier. Compared to the dazzling description of Is 14, 28, he is quite humiliated, and his track is downward: he is about to be confined to the ground, and then he is going to have his head crushed. A loser.

This does not mean humans were evil yet, it means that something evil happened in the past, among higher beings; cp Ps 29. We know from 2 Peter 2 that Peter said, past tense, that some defiant beings were punished by being placed in 'tartarus', using a term from the Greek account THE DEUCALION about the Titans. Hmmm. A few passages mention those who in the depths of the earth, in the cities under (the surface) of the earth. It does seem like something else has been going on here.

If you consider Genesis 1:1 to follow pre-existing fact, then you have a point, but it is not necessary to consider it that way. Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. That doesn't mean that the "six days" following verse 1 are what is meant by verse 1. Verse two seems (to me, anyway) to further describe the disorganized matter and energy of verse one, but not to imply that God simply came upon it and did not create it.

Besides that, if God is God, he is First Cause, and there can be no pre-existing fact besides himself, to which he must acquiesce according to its nature or existence. He is not merely "an extremely powerful being".

Satan is one of God's creatures, as is the universe, or God is only "a god".

We don't have much to go on as to whether there is even any time "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 or even 3, except inferences from discoveries and reasoning.

 

[EarlyActs]

Creation ex nihilo is indicated, I believe, in Genesis 1:1. True, it may be taken as introduction to the following verses or a summary of their events, but it also may be taken as a statement in itself, that precedes the events following. Thus, yes, it includes the creation of the "materials of earth".

(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

If you consider Genesis 1:1 to follow pre-existing fact, then you have a point, but it is not necessary to consider it that way. Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. That doesn't mean that the "six days" following verse 1 are what is meant by verse 1. Verse two seems (to me, anyway) to further describe the disorganized matter and energy of verse one, but not to imply that God simply came upon it and did not create it.

Besides that, if God is God, he is First Cause, and there can be no pre-existing fact besides himself, to which he must acquiesce according to its nature or existence. He is not merely "an extremely powerful being".

Satan is one of God's creatures, as is the universe, or God is only "a god".

We don't have much to go on as to whether there is even any time "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 or even 3, except inferences from discoveries and reasoning.

But if you study the vocab at a basic tool like qbible.com, you see that heavens ‘shami’ is not the distant things. The chapter is about local things.

 

[makesends]

Thanks for your notes.

Follow the matter of light/illumination, and you'll see that the local system cannot be meant when light appears on Day 1. It has to be starlight from elsewhere. As Lennox says, it had to be in transit before Day 1 to arrive Day 1. As for the materials, the indicators are there, even in the text. Why would the earth, for ex., already be there but unformed?

I disagree that the light of Day one had to be starlight. God himself is light, as demonstrated in Revelation, concerning Heaven. I consider that to be physical fact. Starlight (and every other light) depends on God himself for its continuing processes.

Literarily, look at the comparison of ch 28. Pre-existing conditions are given about Rachel and then the text says Rachel was beautiful. Was she beautiful out of nowhere? Was she just beautiful that moment? 2 Peter 3 has earth in pre-conditions. Many of the verbal passages of Genesis (1--39, transmitted verbally) have such extensive backstory or pre-conditions. Traced in the cataclysm account, it adds up to many years.

I don't disagree, but I don't see that as preceding Genesis 1:1

Heb 11 'made out of what is not visible' can still be true by virtue of the fact of God making a mass energy release that is random and lifeless before the event called creation week. It must be explained because it is not, nor can be, God himself.

I find it unreasonable to suppose that God does anything absolutely random, but only that it is 'random' from our POV. "Random" and "Chance" are mere substitutes for "I don't know". They are self-contradictory as causes or absolute descriptors.

Please bear in mind I am saying things are still much different from conventional evolution. The mass energy release (possibly the 'spreading' of Ps 104 and Is 45) are lifeless. Creation week is still intact, recent, and thriving when completed, but is not the distant universe. The earth is simply there from the mass release before hand; the text uses the verb 'to place' about all the local objects--because the earth is already there. Then there is the destruction theme to be studied (formless and void usually have to do with a punishment).

Interesting thoughts. But even if I accept them as fact, they don't change my view that Genesis 1:1 is sequentially previous to Genesis 1:3 or even verse 2.

Creation and cataclysm only affected the outer 0.001% of the crust of earth. The deepest oil reserves are 16,000 ft. All fossils are much shallower. Peter describes things this way, too. But the coming end of the earth is not like this, and is the whole.

Agreed

 

[ChristB4us]

Earth was there on Day 1

Formless and void is God saying earth was not there. Only water was there.

It took God 2 days to create the earth on the 2nd day and the 3rd day and then the universe on day 4.

So you cannot have God resting on the 7th day from all His creation if you apply Genesis 1:1 has something that had already occurred and a passage of time had passed before day one for than day one is not really day one and neither can God say He rested on the 7th day from all His creation if it took longer than actually 6 days to create everything. Note the word "Thus" in Genesis 2:1 and thereby insinuating Genesis 1:1 is the topic and the following verses was about how God had actually done that in verse 1 which concluded in Genesis 2:3 below

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

[Carbon]

makesends said:
(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

I mean that EVERYTHING except God himself is caused by God, to include every principle and fact, to include even reality itself.

The only "raw fact" ("base fact") is God himself. Only God is self-existent.

Anything less is only, at best, "a god"

Got ya

 

[Carbon]

Formless and void is God saying earth was not there. Only water was there.

What was formless and void?

 

[EarlyActs]

I disagree that the light of Day one had to be starlight. God himself is light, as demonstrated in Revelation, concerning Heaven. I consider that to be physical fact. Starlight (and every other light) depends on God himself for its continuing processes.

I don't disagree, but I don't see that as preceding Genesis 1:1

I find it unreasonable to suppose that God does anything absolutely random, but only that it is 'random' from our POV. "Random" and "Chance" are mere substitutes for "I don't know". They are self-contradictory as causes or absolute descriptors.

Interesting thoughts. But even if I accept them as fact, they don't change my view that Genesis 1:1 is sequentially previous to Genesis 1:3 or even verse 2.

Agreed

re day 1 light
If you do that to light on Day 1 then the whole chapter is imaginative. The Hebrew 'lilah' is always ordinary illumination.

 

[EarlyActs]

re pre-existing conditions
Please see my book; there is a lack of research that has many of us in the dark. In it I show the pre-existing conditions all through the verbal transmission, chs 1--39. 1:1 is a title, like 5:1 and a dozen others.

Regardless, I mean pre-existing Day 1 and the formless and void and dark and water is obviously pre-existing what happened on Day 1. How could there be light on the 'deep' if there was not already a deep upon which was darkness?

Some scientists say this is still possible within a day, but the literary style of Gen 1 does not. Day 1 can't be until God makes a declaration, as the other 6 show.

Remember if Centauri sends enough light to distinguish day and night, all we are talking about is 4 years (it is 4LYA).

 

[CrowCross]

What was formless and void?

Formless is like a slab of marble prior to the sculpture being made. Or, like a lump of clay prior to it being shaped into what the potter wants it to be. I don't think formless represents a 3D item.

Void....nothing living on it.

 

[CrowCross]

Some scientists say this is still possible within a day, but the literary style of Gen 1 does not. Day 1 can't be until God makes a declaration, as the other 6 show.

God made that declaration in the ten commandments...11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.

 

[EarlyActs]

re randomness.
That is relative to the firmament, which is totally by design and contains earth. Parking earth out by itself in the dark for a while is tentatively random, so you could say it is only random at first, but He planned to use it. I'm referring to all the distant worlds locations as random. By Gen 15 we find that the point is not their placement but their number, while those in the firmament are designed for communication.

Imagine fireworks going off. The burst is meant to look like something, but there is a randomness to each part in the end. Well, I don't find the distant universe to be meant to look like something, not as the firmament was with its communicators.

Please see my journal; I can't rewrite it every day.

 

[EarlyActs]

Formless and void is God saying earth was not there. Only water was there.

It took God 2 days to create the earth on the 2nd day and the 3rd day and then the universe on day 4.

So you cannot have God resting on the 7th day from all His creation if you apply Genesis 1:1 has something that had already occurred and a passage of time had passed before day one for than day one is not really day one and neither can God say He rested on the 7th day from all His creation if it took longer than actually 6 days to create everything. Note the word "Thus" in Genesis 2:1 and thereby insinuating Genesis 1:1 is the topic and the following verses was about how God had actually done that in verse 1 which concluded in Genesis 2:3 below

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

re things before Day 1

The pre-existing verse (as in all others in Gen 1-39) says that there was backstory.

As far as the earth goes, it allows for the materials to be there from a previous action that was somewhat random, but then defines 'creation' as how the surface, habitable zone was finished. This is what Peter meant in 2P3 about through water and by water, and distinct from the universe from old, and comparing it to the cataclysm. The cataclysm also only affected 0.001% of the crust; the lowest oil reserves are only 16,000 ft down.

The creation is nearly blurred with the cataclysm in Ps 104. This means that there were pre-existing thing. The mountains were raised above water, the water ran off.

 

[CrowCross]

So since the Bible testify that the behemoth as that dinosaur that existed with mankind, then there would be evidence of mankind having seen a dinosaur, right?

And there is. Here's one of the best web sites I've seen on this topic. Genesis park. It presents "tons" of evidence man saw dinosaurs and walked the earth together.