Scripture asks us, no tells us, to defend the faith and contend for the faith. (Jude) To put on the full armor of God. In that sense we mount the ramparts. The struggle is the same as it has always been, between following God and following the world. We like to do both, but it doesn't work; it was the downfall of both Israel and Judah, and led to the decline of the roman cath church, which led to the reformation.
The reformed roots were to bring God's people back to scripture, rather than to man's opinions. We are to be reformed from a life of sin and separation from God, towards a life of repentance and consecration towards God, using scripture as God's word, as our guide. Accomodating to worldly living is not being reformed. Being reformed is informing ourselves and others how the world should be transformed in its living if it desired to follow Christ. Fundamentalism is a worldly concept, not worthy of comment. Being a radical christian means dedicating all of life to God, not trying to accomodate our desire to be like the world.
When we have difficult questions, which we always will, they should be answered in a scriptural and reformed way, and not given the credence which caused the problem in the first place. For example, since there are so many divorces, should we have an article in the banner saying that since there are so many divorces, that probably that is a normal state of affairs, which we should have a special ceremony for? or should we have an article advising us to reform our lives and attitudes in such a way as to reduce the number of divorces?
A Banner that denigrates the basic confessions and supports immoral living has nothing to say to us that the world is not already saying. If it continues to do that, it will cease to be a christian magazine, much less a reformed magazine. The mandate of the Banner is not to imitate the Washington Post or the Toronto Star. It is not to create controversy. It is not to provide both sides of every issue as if both sides are always valid. Rather, it is to be a witness to Christ, to contend for the faith, explain the milk and the meat of the gospel, and to help us put on the full armor of God.
Isaac's example is clear. His father sent a servant to get a wife for him. His union was anticipated and publicly approved and acknowledged. It was acknowledged as marriage, a permanent committment. No one questioned whether this was a trial period, or a partnership of temporary convenience. It is our lack of understanding of marriage that sometimes creates the issue, especially when we have cohabitation as an imitation of the world's view of sex and marriage.
It is not primarily the state that validates marriage, nor even the church. Instead it is the public and private committment for marriage until death do us part that is the marriage. The state and the church facilitate this committment, and consolidate and support this committment. But when young cohabiting people deny they are married, or fail to announce their marriage committment in some public way, they are simply indicating a lack of committment, a lack of marriage. If they are committed, they ought to use every means at their disposal to support that committment. They should not leave their committment in question. Instead, they are reserving the right to renege. This is not the way of christian living, but the way of the world, and should not be supported by the church.
Above reproach..... "Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money." I Timothy 3.
Not even a hint of.... "Ephesians 5:3... But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people."
It would be interesting to know if there is such a thing as "new ways". The only answer is faith, he says, but that is quite general and might be misunderstood. There are many faiths, and even the devils believe (and tremble). The real only answer is Christ as the son of God, his death and resurrection. (Probably that's what Timmermans meant by "faith", but many others could misunderstand).
To speak in new ways... what does that mean? like the pacifists who refused to fight in the army? like the hutterites who isolated themselves? like the sphere sovereignty people who want to separate church and state and education and business from each other? Like the social gospel people who wanted to be good samaritans without being christ followers? Like the soul winners who ignored poverty? or like the soul winners who ignored personal christian morality?
Whether new or not, perhaps the church should concentrate on not compromising, and follow the example of Daniel and his friends at the expected expense of their life. The deacon Stephen who preached an unpleasant message and died for it. Like Peter and Paul and early christians who would not offer sacrifice to Ceasar. Like those who would obey God rather than men. And the church grew greatly at that time. Maybe not new, but in this day and age, maybe it is new.
We have christian schools in Alberta that have been there since the 1950s. But as time went on, they began to yearn for the provincial dollar, believing they had a right to it. I think they do have a right to it, but how easy will it be to maintain christian education once governments impose their value system on the christian school under the threat of removing funding? It will be interesting to see whether the school retains both its funding and its right to speak against homosex, or premarital sex, or adultery, as the state maintains the supposed human rights to equal treatment for all. Likewise the compromises that churches engage in have a great danger of killing them slowly as they attempt to honor Christ without sacrifice.
Bonnie and Larry and Bill are making good points. Sphere sovereignty does not mean that one sphere does not interract or influence another. Sphere sovereignty means that the church does not run or operate the state, and that the state does not appoint preachers or elders, and that neither the church nor the state should operate business nor daily education. At that level, private citizens, perhaps influenced by their church and their education, would operate the state, their business, and their schools. It is impossible to avoid interaction, since the state will have to decide whether to tax churches or exempt them. The state will at minimum have to facilitate education if private citizens are not doing it adequately.
But it is true that scripture does speak to poverty, justice, fairness, and if the church speaks the gospel, it is difficult to see why it would exclude some issues from its purview. (Should the church be in the business of deciding on appropriate tradeoffs politically? ie. trading abortion for healthcare?) On the other hand, the tendency of the church is often to latch on to issues which society finds popular. In that case, scripture is merely being used as a cover or justification for involvement. Women in office and environmental issues are particularly relevant here. Was greenpeace the result of scriptural preaching or something else? Were all the scriptural advocacy for women in office not relevant for 1900 years?
While the church could speak on many issues, it should recognize that in the eyes of the world, its opinion on these issues will not often bring people to Christ, especially if it has the same position as the world. It will merely lull people to placidity, since they will not be challenged by the gospel. While Jesus did say to give to Ceasar what is ceasar's and to God what is God's, it was not until denying Ceasar what he thought was his, that the gospel took on real significance.
Bill. It's true dead seeds do not sprout. Some seeds die without producing a plant. But perhaps your simple statement misses the essence of what is happening. A seed that wants to remain alive only as a seed, will never produce a plant. It must get rid of the mantle and essence of the seed, in order to become a plant. In the process of germinating, the seed disintegrates(dies). Even a seed potato must empty itself in order to become a potato plant. It must die to self, and live to what it can produce. This too is scientific reality.
I believe one of the causes of differences between denominations or between christians who think they believe different things from other christians, is that deep down in their hearts, people want to be different. They want to find a way to distinguish from others, or as scripture says, "...there must be differences to show which has God's approval..." I Corinthians 1:19. This takes place in doctrine, in lifestyle, in philosophy, science, dress, language, and education, within the church. This can be caused by anyone, whether educated or not, whether ecclesiastical or not. How is this relevant to discussions about evolution? The same things happen there. Questions about peer review, scientific method, consensus of scientists become deciding factors for divisions.
So, in the interest of providing a balance and another perspective, I suggest you check out the latest youtube video on Wazooloo.com, of Genesis Week, where Ian Juby explains mistakes made in paleontology with regard to mixing bones of Australopithecus and homoerectus. (youtube.com/watch?v=8FKKw74DWo0). This mixing was not discovered before the scientific paper went to peer review and so it was published, but of course it was later discovered to be mistaken. He explains many examples of how scientific journals refused to publish papers from scientists who were later given the Nobel Prize for their scientific work; ie. Krebs cycle, Watson and Crick's double helix, etc. Ironically, Darwin never wrote in a peer review journal. So why the big emphasis on anti-evolutionists publishing in peer review journals? He gives several other very interesting examples of the lack of objectivity of peer review journals, such as when the journals refused to publish previously published papers, even though they had not detected that they were already published in their own journal.
Then, he explains that there are a number of peer review journals which do accept young earth oriented papers, or intelligent design or anti-evolution research. And guess what, then we have some people ridiculing these other journals. So it is not really about peer review, but about point-of-view. And this gives us a clue about ecumenicity, or about reducing or removing barriers to Christian brotherhood. The importance of motives (desire to be different, or not), the willingness or lack of it to accept various ways of saying the same thing play huge roles. Perhaps we should focus more on how christians are different from the world, rather than different from each other. That might put the emphasis where it really should be.
Joy, the first video was fascinating. Tjalle, there are a number of explanations for how animals got to different places, partly because of movement of continents, and partly the likelihood of huge floating matts of trees and organic debris to carry them. As far as time to repopulate, 4000, 6000 years was plenty of time for repopulation. If Noah's individual descendants (each son and daughter pair) were unique to start with, ie., contained unique sets of genetics, then it would not have taken long for different group types to develop from single pairs, or even somewhat small but similar groups after the tower of Babel. Interesting how the African Americans or Indo-Chinese remain distinctive when they have lived in USA for many generations, simply because they mate with similar types. It is much easier for this to happen from small similar groups than from large variable groups. None of these issues seem like big issues to me.
It would seem much harder to explain geology, petrified trees, historic erosion, ripple effects, carbonate layers, separation of bark and tree trunks, and many other features, without an enormous global flood. Grand Canyon is used as a reference because it is huge, exposed, available. But features such as the Dover cliffs, the Rocky Mountains, Mount St. Helens, mammoths with camels in Artic ice, Iceland flooding due to glacier melted by volcano, and huge coal mines around the globe help to explain the catastrophic nature of most geological features.
Yes, sin entering the world is another topic, related but yet somewhat separate. It is related in the sense of how an OEE might explain the difference between murder, and simple survival of the fittest. It is related in how we distinguish between what is an animal instinct, and what is human disobedience to how God made us and wants us to be. Tough one.
Tjalle, I appreciate the tenor of your comments. I think you are expressing your understandings in good way. It seems that you are expressing much of the traditional understandings of sedimentation, but in a somewhat simplistic way. For example, a global catastrophic flood would exhibit some principles similar to local floods, but given that the flood lasted a year and 17 days, it had to be much more serious and catastrophic than a mere typhoon, tsunami, or rapid glacier melt (such as Iceland has had). Mt. St. Helens demonstrates the rapidity with which canyons can be carved and tree trunks deposited in soil in an upright position. While you are right that various particles separate out from water at different rates, it is difficult for us to imagine what type of particles might have been in the water, and whether they were all there at the same time. For example, some particles may have been in the water at the beginning of the flood, while others showed up a month or two later. Particles of sand would tend to settle out within hours, while silt might take hours, and clay might take days or weeks to settle. But limestone is likely the result of billions of shells settling and turning into calcium carbonate, and that would likely depend on when these snails and shell fish died. Many clam fossils give evidence that they drowned (unnatural death). The first video Joy pointed out, gives some potential clues to how these layers settled. A book by Walt Brown "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" gives some possibilities as well, which are consistent with the evidence.
In Walt Brown's model, the movement of the continents was relatively quick, and happened at the time of the flood. The flood and continental drift were part of the same event. This does not really solve the problem of animal movement, since during most of the drift, the continents would have been inundated. This is also true for the Creation Ministries model of the flood. Some of the physics and engineering principles involved in movement, energy, and flow are described. The video that Joy highlighted, shows Walter Veith (on Amazing Discoveries program) describing the directions of water flow across the continents at different geological layers, and gives his explanation for that in relation to the elevations and uplifts of these layers at different times. He also explains how similar geochemical conditions are across a geological profile, which indicates that hundreds of feet must have been laid down within 30 days or less, and not over eons of time.
It seems that sandstone, shale and limestone found in the grand canyon must have been laid down by water, based on the characteristics and flatness of the layers. Since sediment in water tends to descend relatively rapidly, it does not give evidence of long periods of time. If long time existed, then long time would have had to exist between layers, but it is difficult to demonstrate time from an absence of something. That would primarily be a speculation. Polystrate fossils would indicate that there was not a long period of time between layers.
What about people? If we assume that all the genetics existed before the flood, so that Noah and his wife were quite different, perhaps like a Greek marrying a Kenyan native, and their sons also married varied wives, perhaps the three wives were like a Nordic type, an Asian type, and a Fulani type, then you could see the potential variation already existed. All that would be required would be for a type of segregation to occur, which would be natural when the languages were confused at Babel, since people would tend to associate with those who would be most like them. We know that human nature in groups tends to isolate or shun those who are significantly different, and this likely led to the distinction of people's more than any other cause such as environmental adaptation. Thus we have Dene, a somewhat darker skinned type in the far north in Canada, and Nordic types in the far north in Europe. Very dark natives in central Africa and Australia, and mildly dark skinned natives in South America and Asia.
Your hypothesis about original sin is interesting, but inconsistent with scripture since the command to obey came before their apparent knowledge of good and evil, not after. It seems their knowledge came about because of their disobedience, so that they knew how to disobey. Our confessions also say that even infants are part of the sinful nature, even though they do not really understand it; that would be somewhat different than what you are suggesting.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Scripture asks us, no tells us, to defend the faith and contend for the faith. (Jude) To put on the full armor of God. In that sense we mount the ramparts. The struggle is the same as it has always been, between following God and following the world. We like to do both, but it doesn't work; it was the downfall of both Israel and Judah, and led to the decline of the roman cath church, which led to the reformation.
The reformed roots were to bring God's people back to scripture, rather than to man's opinions. We are to be reformed from a life of sin and separation from God, towards a life of repentance and consecration towards God, using scripture as God's word, as our guide. Accomodating to worldly living is not being reformed. Being reformed is informing ourselves and others how the world should be transformed in its living if it desired to follow Christ. Fundamentalism is a worldly concept, not worthy of comment. Being a radical christian means dedicating all of life to God, not trying to accomodate our desire to be like the world.
When we have difficult questions, which we always will, they should be answered in a scriptural and reformed way, and not given the credence which caused the problem in the first place. For example, since there are so many divorces, should we have an article in the banner saying that since there are so many divorces, that probably that is a normal state of affairs, which we should have a special ceremony for? or should we have an article advising us to reform our lives and attitudes in such a way as to reduce the number of divorces?
A Banner that denigrates the basic confessions and supports immoral living has nothing to say to us that the world is not already saying. If it continues to do that, it will cease to be a christian magazine, much less a reformed magazine. The mandate of the Banner is not to imitate the Washington Post or the Toronto Star. It is not to create controversy. It is not to provide both sides of every issue as if both sides are always valid. Rather, it is to be a witness to Christ, to contend for the faith, explain the milk and the meat of the gospel, and to help us put on the full armor of God.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Isaac's example is clear. His father sent a servant to get a wife for him. His union was anticipated and publicly approved and acknowledged. It was acknowledged as marriage, a permanent committment. No one questioned whether this was a trial period, or a partnership of temporary convenience. It is our lack of understanding of marriage that sometimes creates the issue, especially when we have cohabitation as an imitation of the world's view of sex and marriage.
It is not primarily the state that validates marriage, nor even the church. Instead it is the public and private committment for marriage until death do us part that is the marriage. The state and the church facilitate this committment, and consolidate and support this committment. But when young cohabiting people deny they are married, or fail to announce their marriage committment in some public way, they are simply indicating a lack of committment, a lack of marriage. If they are committed, they ought to use every means at their disposal to support that committment. They should not leave their committment in question. Instead, they are reserving the right to renege. This is not the way of christian living, but the way of the world, and should not be supported by the church.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Or, the sex act is adultery, or fornication.
Posted in: Banner Article Highlights Need for Accountability
Above reproach..... "Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money." I Timothy 3.
Posted in: Banner Article Highlights Need for Accountability
Not even a hint of.... "Ephesians 5:3... But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people."
Posted in: The Voice of The Church in Society
It would be interesting to know if there is such a thing as "new ways". The only answer is faith, he says, but that is quite general and might be misunderstood. There are many faiths, and even the devils believe (and tremble). The real only answer is Christ as the son of God, his death and resurrection. (Probably that's what Timmermans meant by "faith", but many others could misunderstand).
To speak in new ways... what does that mean? like the pacifists who refused to fight in the army? like the hutterites who isolated themselves? like the sphere sovereignty people who want to separate church and state and education and business from each other? Like the social gospel people who wanted to be good samaritans without being christ followers? Like the soul winners who ignored poverty? or like the soul winners who ignored personal christian morality?
Whether new or not, perhaps the church should concentrate on not compromising, and follow the example of Daniel and his friends at the expected expense of their life. The deacon Stephen who preached an unpleasant message and died for it. Like Peter and Paul and early christians who would not offer sacrifice to Ceasar. Like those who would obey God rather than men. And the church grew greatly at that time. Maybe not new, but in this day and age, maybe it is new.
We have christian schools in Alberta that have been there since the 1950s. But as time went on, they began to yearn for the provincial dollar, believing they had a right to it. I think they do have a right to it, but how easy will it be to maintain christian education once governments impose their value system on the christian school under the threat of removing funding? It will be interesting to see whether the school retains both its funding and its right to speak against homosex, or premarital sex, or adultery, as the state maintains the supposed human rights to equal treatment for all. Likewise the compromises that churches engage in have a great danger of killing them slowly as they attempt to honor Christ without sacrifice.
Posted in: The Voice of The Church in Society
Bonnie and Larry and Bill are making good points. Sphere sovereignty does not mean that one sphere does not interract or influence another. Sphere sovereignty means that the church does not run or operate the state, and that the state does not appoint preachers or elders, and that neither the church nor the state should operate business nor daily education. At that level, private citizens, perhaps influenced by their church and their education, would operate the state, their business, and their schools. It is impossible to avoid interaction, since the state will have to decide whether to tax churches or exempt them. The state will at minimum have to facilitate education if private citizens are not doing it adequately.
But it is true that scripture does speak to poverty, justice, fairness, and if the church speaks the gospel, it is difficult to see why it would exclude some issues from its purview. (Should the church be in the business of deciding on appropriate tradeoffs politically? ie. trading abortion for healthcare?) On the other hand, the tendency of the church is often to latch on to issues which society finds popular. In that case, scripture is merely being used as a cover or justification for involvement. Women in office and environmental issues are particularly relevant here. Was greenpeace the result of scriptural preaching or something else? Were all the scriptural advocacy for women in office not relevant for 1900 years?
While the church could speak on many issues, it should recognize that in the eyes of the world, its opinion on these issues will not often bring people to Christ, especially if it has the same position as the world. It will merely lull people to placidity, since they will not be challenged by the gospel. While Jesus did say to give to Ceasar what is ceasar's and to God what is God's, it was not until denying Ceasar what he thought was his, that the gospel took on real significance.
Posted in: Unless a Kernel of Wheat Falls
Bill. It's true dead seeds do not sprout. Some seeds die without producing a plant. But perhaps your simple statement misses the essence of what is happening. A seed that wants to remain alive only as a seed, will never produce a plant. It must get rid of the mantle and essence of the seed, in order to become a plant. In the process of germinating, the seed disintegrates(dies). Even a seed potato must empty itself in order to become a potato plant. It must die to self, and live to what it can produce. This too is scientific reality.
Posted in: Is Creationism an Area of Ecumenism? Does God Belong in Science?
I believe one of the causes of differences between denominations or between christians who think they believe different things from other christians, is that deep down in their hearts, people want to be different. They want to find a way to distinguish from others, or as scripture says, "...there must be differences to show which has God's approval..." I Corinthians 1:19. This takes place in doctrine, in lifestyle, in philosophy, science, dress, language, and education, within the church. This can be caused by anyone, whether educated or not, whether ecclesiastical or not. How is this relevant to discussions about evolution? The same things happen there. Questions about peer review, scientific method, consensus of scientists become deciding factors for divisions.
So, in the interest of providing a balance and another perspective, I suggest you check out the latest youtube video on Wazooloo.com, of Genesis Week, where Ian Juby explains mistakes made in paleontology with regard to mixing bones of Australopithecus and homoerectus. (youtube.com/watch?v=8FKKw74DWo0). This mixing was not discovered before the scientific paper went to peer review and so it was published, but of course it was later discovered to be mistaken. He explains many examples of how scientific journals refused to publish papers from scientists who were later given the Nobel Prize for their scientific work; ie. Krebs cycle, Watson and Crick's double helix, etc. Ironically, Darwin never wrote in a peer review journal. So why the big emphasis on anti-evolutionists publishing in peer review journals? He gives several other very interesting examples of the lack of objectivity of peer review journals, such as when the journals refused to publish previously published papers, even though they had not detected that they were already published in their own journal.
Then, he explains that there are a number of peer review journals which do accept young earth oriented papers, or intelligent design or anti-evolution research. And guess what, then we have some people ridiculing these other journals. So it is not really about peer review, but about point-of-view. And this gives us a clue about ecumenicity, or about reducing or removing barriers to Christian brotherhood. The importance of motives (desire to be different, or not), the willingness or lack of it to accept various ways of saying the same thing play huge roles. Perhaps we should focus more on how christians are different from the world, rather than different from each other. That might put the emphasis where it really should be.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
Good points!
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Joy, the first video was fascinating. Tjalle, there are a number of explanations for how animals got to different places, partly because of movement of continents, and partly the likelihood of huge floating matts of trees and organic debris to carry them. As far as time to repopulate, 4000, 6000 years was plenty of time for repopulation. If Noah's individual descendants (each son and daughter pair) were unique to start with, ie., contained unique sets of genetics, then it would not have taken long for different group types to develop from single pairs, or even somewhat small but similar groups after the tower of Babel. Interesting how the African Americans or Indo-Chinese remain distinctive when they have lived in USA for many generations, simply because they mate with similar types. It is much easier for this to happen from small similar groups than from large variable groups. None of these issues seem like big issues to me.
It would seem much harder to explain geology, petrified trees, historic erosion, ripple effects, carbonate layers, separation of bark and tree trunks, and many other features, without an enormous global flood. Grand Canyon is used as a reference because it is huge, exposed, available. But features such as the Dover cliffs, the Rocky Mountains, Mount St. Helens, mammoths with camels in Artic ice, Iceland flooding due to glacier melted by volcano, and huge coal mines around the globe help to explain the catastrophic nature of most geological features.
Yes, sin entering the world is another topic, related but yet somewhat separate. It is related in the sense of how an OEE might explain the difference between murder, and simple survival of the fittest. It is related in how we distinguish between what is an animal instinct, and what is human disobedience to how God made us and wants us to be. Tough one.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, I appreciate the tenor of your comments. I think you are expressing your understandings in good way. It seems that you are expressing much of the traditional understandings of sedimentation, but in a somewhat simplistic way. For example, a global catastrophic flood would exhibit some principles similar to local floods, but given that the flood lasted a year and 17 days, it had to be much more serious and catastrophic than a mere typhoon, tsunami, or rapid glacier melt (such as Iceland has had). Mt. St. Helens demonstrates the rapidity with which canyons can be carved and tree trunks deposited in soil in an upright position. While you are right that various particles separate out from water at different rates, it is difficult for us to imagine what type of particles might have been in the water, and whether they were all there at the same time. For example, some particles may have been in the water at the beginning of the flood, while others showed up a month or two later. Particles of sand would tend to settle out within hours, while silt might take hours, and clay might take days or weeks to settle. But limestone is likely the result of billions of shells settling and turning into calcium carbonate, and that would likely depend on when these snails and shell fish died. Many clam fossils give evidence that they drowned (unnatural death). The first video Joy pointed out, gives some potential clues to how these layers settled. A book by Walt Brown "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" gives some possibilities as well, which are consistent with the evidence.
In Walt Brown's model, the movement of the continents was relatively quick, and happened at the time of the flood. The flood and continental drift were part of the same event. This does not really solve the problem of animal movement, since during most of the drift, the continents would have been inundated. This is also true for the Creation Ministries model of the flood. Some of the physics and engineering principles involved in movement, energy, and flow are described. The video that Joy highlighted, shows Walter Veith (on Amazing Discoveries program) describing the directions of water flow across the continents at different geological layers, and gives his explanation for that in relation to the elevations and uplifts of these layers at different times. He also explains how similar geochemical conditions are across a geological profile, which indicates that hundreds of feet must have been laid down within 30 days or less, and not over eons of time.
It seems that sandstone, shale and limestone found in the grand canyon must have been laid down by water, based on the characteristics and flatness of the layers. Since sediment in water tends to descend relatively rapidly, it does not give evidence of long periods of time. If long time existed, then long time would have had to exist between layers, but it is difficult to demonstrate time from an absence of something. That would primarily be a speculation. Polystrate fossils would indicate that there was not a long period of time between layers.
What about people? If we assume that all the genetics existed before the flood, so that Noah and his wife were quite different, perhaps like a Greek marrying a Kenyan native, and their sons also married varied wives, perhaps the three wives were like a Nordic type, an Asian type, and a Fulani type, then you could see the potential variation already existed. All that would be required would be for a type of segregation to occur, which would be natural when the languages were confused at Babel, since people would tend to associate with those who would be most like them. We know that human nature in groups tends to isolate or shun those who are significantly different, and this likely led to the distinction of people's more than any other cause such as environmental adaptation. Thus we have Dene, a somewhat darker skinned type in the far north in Canada, and Nordic types in the far north in Europe. Very dark natives in central Africa and Australia, and mildly dark skinned natives in South America and Asia.
Your hypothesis about original sin is interesting, but inconsistent with scripture since the command to obey came before their apparent knowledge of good and evil, not after. It seems their knowledge came about because of their disobedience, so that they knew how to disobey. Our confessions also say that even infants are part of the sinful nature, even though they do not really understand it; that would be somewhat different than what you are suggesting.