Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 91 to 105 of 105

Thread: Evidence For a Flood

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,758

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    There is more than enough water to cover a flatter landscape if there were no deep ocean trenches. The water has currently filled the ocean trenches but if those somehow closed over, we would have a deep problem, pun intended. Those ocean trenches formed during tectonic activity during and after the PT boundary. Both the Permian and Triassic had plants, so as a bible literalist occurred within the last 7000 years.

    The ocean currently covers the earth at an average depth of 3688M over 71 percent of the earth's surface. If we could spread it out a little more to cover the whole earth it would cover the whole earth by 2.6 km. That is fact, so much for not enough water for a flood, that argument is based on high mountain ranges and deep ocean trenches.

    All the big mountain ranges, Rockies, Andes, Himalayas formed after the PT boundary. The Alps began earlier, but only reached significance after the PT boundary.
    The supercontinent Pangea only started breaking up after the PT boundary, and much of the ocean's water is situated in the resulting oceans that never existed before. So there certainly was enough water during the PT boundary to cover the lower mountain ranges.
    So you think the Flood took place *millions* of years ago--over 200 million years ago? You think Man has been around that long? You're right. I'm not comprehending you. I don't think I *can* comprehend you!

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,966
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Aviyah View Post
    They're both fundamental to understanding what the Earth is. If you reject science on volcanoes and earthquakes, I figured the planet surface might be in question too since it's also related to the plates.
    Please note, I'm not rejecting science on Vulcanoes and earthquakes I'm rejecting the science that think tectonic plates is the reason, because they don't exist. People seem to forget easily all the problems tectonic theory has. Most people just swallow what is on the science « spoon » in front of their mouth. However what is forgotten is that it is called Tectonic plate THEORY.

    So is the hydroplate THEORY, if one would be open instead of caught in a THEORY all THEORIES would be researched and perhaps then we might come closer to the truth. Of tectonic plates we read *:

    « In the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 3, pages 307–352, David Pratt took issue with the theory of tectonic displacement of continental and ocean floor structure. As he wrote: “The classical model of thin lithospheric plates moving over a global asthenosphere is shown to be implausible.” ». Further he says:

    « What are Pratt’s concerns with the current theory of Plate Tectonics?

    1. The lithosphere is not a contiguous structure. There are alternating layers that make the separation of the lithosphere from the asthenosphere impossible to determine.

    2. Earthquakes and volcanoes are supposed to define plate edges. However, recent oceanic research detected earthquakes at depths that are supposed to have no seismic activity, since the deep oceans are far from plate boundaries.

    3. Many plates seem not to even exist. As Pratt describes, the northwest boundary of the Pacific, North American, and Eurasian plates, the southern boundary of the Philippine plate, part of the southern boundary of the Pacific plate, and most of the northern and southern boundaries of the South American plate, are fictitious.

    4. The appearance of the “continental fit” is an illusion. Many proposals for how the present day continents fit together leave out important considerations. Overlaps of the continental shelves are passed over, while gaps are given no credence. The reader is referred to pages 7-9 of Pratt’s paper.

    5. The assumption that rocks are magnetized when they form, and that they retain that magnetization over eons of time is untenable. Furthermore, it is necessary that they retain the magnetic orientation that existed on Earth at the time of their formation.

    6. Rather than India being an island for over 200 million years after it separated from Antarctica, and before it “crashed into” Asia, the evidence is that it has always been part of Asia. India shows no sign of a unique flora and fauna that would suggest hundreds of millions of years as an isolated environment, such as the biota in Australia.

    7. Heat flow from the spreading zones in the mid-ocean does not fall off farther from the zone. Instead, there is hardly any variance in temperature distribution from the ridges and the rest of the ocean. This fact contradicts a concentrated flow of magma creating new crust in the seams of the ocean floor.

    8. The seafloor spreading theory of magnetic anomalies on the ocean floor has been disproven by drilling cores. The so-called “magnetic bands” on the ocean bottom have been found to be composed of isolated ovals, rather than linear formations. »

    What Pratt not even mentions is that granite is an anomaly, it can't be made in the laboratory. The tectonic plate THEORY never discusses this, but if the earth was a glowing globe of magma 4.54 billion years ago, there would not be granite. Granite is created, not formed. If you melt granite in a laboratory and let it cool down by itself, it becomes rhyolite. Remember according the the tectonic plate THEORY we need all those billions of years, so it could cool really slow. Preposterous!

    Besides all this what is mostly against tectonic plates is Scripture and the purpose of the aions (Eph. 3:11 source text). The idea that the earth is 4.54 billion years old is therefore preposterous. You can not serve Mammon and God.

    Since science is heavily dependent on research money and this money is in the hands of those who deny a creator God, it makes sense a theory like the hydroplate THEORY is ridiculed, that is the common way, if someone disagrees, just ridicule him, he'll go away, if he wont, get personal.

    Aristarkos
    ________
    * https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...ate-tectonics/

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,431

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Well, since you do want to appear to talk about it...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    « In the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 3, pages 307–352, David Pratt took issue with the theory of tectonic displacement of continental and ocean floor structure. As he wrote: “The classical model of thin lithospheric plates moving over a global asthenosphere is shown to be implausible.” ». Further he says:

    « What are Pratt’s concerns with the current theory of Plate Tectonics?

    1. The lithosphere is not a contiguous structure. There are alternating layers that make the separation of the lithosphere from the asthenosphere impossible to determine.

    2. Earthquakes and volcanoes are supposed to define plate edges. However, recent oceanic research detected earthquakes at depths that are supposed to have no seismic activity, since the deep oceans are far from plate boundaries.

    3. Many plates seem not to even exist. As Pratt describes, the northwest boundary of the Pacific, North American, and Eurasian plates, the southern boundary of the Philippine plate, part of the southern boundary of the Pacific plate, and most of the northern and southern boundaries of the South American plate, are fictitious.

    4. The appearance of the “continental fit” is an illusion. Many proposals for how the present day continents fit together leave out important considerations. Overlaps of the continental shelves are passed over, while gaps are given no credence. The reader is referred to pages 7-9 of Pratt’s paper.

    5. The assumption that rocks are magnetized when they form, and that they retain that magnetization over eons of time is untenable. Furthermore, it is necessary that they retain the magnetic orientation that existed on Earth at the time of their formation.

    6. Rather than India being an island for over 200 million years after it separated from Antarctica, and before it “crashed into” Asia, the evidence is that it has always been part of Asia. India shows no sign of a unique flora and fauna that would suggest hundreds of millions of years as an isolated environment, such as the biota in Australia.

    7. Heat flow from the spreading zones in the mid-ocean does not fall off farther from the zone. Instead, there is hardly any variance in temperature distribution from the ridges and the rest of the ocean. This fact contradicts a concentrated flow of magma creating new crust in the seams of the ocean floor.

    8. The seafloor spreading theory of magnetic anomalies on the ocean floor has been disproven by drilling cores. The so-called “magnetic bands” on the ocean bottom have been found to be composed of isolated ovals, rather than linear formations. »
    So I looked up the cited article (Pratt, 2000) and here are some additional papers from that same journal:

    • The Effect of the "Laying On of Hands" on Transplanted Breast Cancer in Mice
    • The Stability of Assessments of Paranormal Connections in Reincarnation-Type Cases
    • Can Population Growth Rule Out Reincarnation? A Model of Circular Migration
    • Reaching for Reality-Seven Incredible True Stories of Alien Abduction by Constance Clear

    If I was looking for some serious critique of Plate Tectonic theory, I don't think this would be my go-to journal.


    What Pratt not even mentions is that granite is an anomaly, it can't be made in the laboratory. The tectonic plate THEORY never discusses this, but if the earth was a glowing globe of magma 4.54 billion years ago, there would not be granite. Granite is created, not formed. If you melt granite in a laboratory and let it cool down by itself, it becomes rhyolite. Remember according the the tectonic plate THEORY we need all those billions of years, so it could cool really slow. Preposterous!
    I'm not even sure Plate Tectonic theory concerns itself with the formation of granites (it has implications, of course, but it's not a critical component of the theory). Also, I am pretty sure Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis has produced a paper or two attempting to present a mechanism for rapid formation of granites because these are problematic for the YEC timeline. Lastly, we could probably grow a granite in a laboratory, but we'd have to wait a long, long time. Like, generations long.

    Besides all this what is mostly against tectonic plates is Scripture and the purpose of the aions (Eph. 3:11 source text). The idea that the earth is 4.54 billion years old is therefore preposterous. You can not serve Mammon and God.
    That has got to be the first time I've been accused of serving Mammon. I think you need to exegete Epesians 3:11 for me, because I don't see anything about aions: Ephesians 3:11 - "according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord"

    Since science is heavily dependent on research money and this money is in the hands of those who deny a creator God, it makes sense a theory like the hydroplate THEORY is ridiculed, that is the common way, if someone disagrees, just ridicule him, he'll go away, if he wont, get personal.
    Hydroplate theory was developed because YEC-adherents had to account for the reality of the plates. Same reason for catastrophic plate tectonic theory (although I would classify both as hypotheses). Also, kudos for the anti-science conspiracy.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,966
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    Well, since you do want to appear to talk about it...


    So I looked up the cited article (Pratt, 2000) and here are some additional papers from that same journal:

    • The Effect of the "Laying On of Hands" on Transplanted Breast Cancer in Mice
    • The Stability of Assessments of Paranormal Connections in Reincarnation-Type Cases
    • Can Population Growth Rule Out Reincarnation? A Model of Circular Migration
    • Reaching for Reality-Seven Incredible True Stories of Alien Abduction by Constance Clear

    If I was looking for some serious critique of Plate Tectonic theory, I don't think this would be my go-to journal.
    Why? This has nothing to do with his research as you well know. Herod practically rebuilt the Temple, yet was a very bad person. So now that temple was just crap?

    I'm not even sure Plate Tectonic theory concerns itself with the formation of granites (it has implications, of course, but it's not a critical component of the theory). Also, I am pretty sure Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis has produced a paper or two attempting to present a mechanism for rapid formation of granites because these are problematic for the YEC timeline. Lastly, we could probably grow a granite in a laboratory, but we'd have to wait a long, long time. Like, generations long.
    Well good for you, but isn't all you say a THEORY, not FACT

    That has got to be the first time I've been accused of serving Mammon. I think you need to exegete Epesians 3:11 for me, because I don't see anything about aions: Ephesians 3:11 - "according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord"
    The N.T. wasn't written in English, but in Greek and the Greek text of Eph. 3:11 says « According to the purpose of the aions which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord ».

    Hydroplate theory was developed because YEC-adherents had to account for the reality of the plates. Same reason for catastrophic plate tectonic theory (although I would classify both as hypotheses). Also, kudos for the anti-science conspiracy.
    Hydroplate THEORY is just that a THEORY not a FACT as is the platetectonics THEORY. The problem is that you are on the tip of your chair defending a THEORY as if it is a FACT. Since neither can be proven it is pointless to discuss this. These are my final words on this subject. Thank you for your time.

    Aristarkos

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    5,807
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    I don’t see how we can pull Ephesians 3 into this discussion. Verse 11 is a partial sentence. Look at it with verse 10. I don’t think the flood or geology are in the mind of Paul (or God) when writing this.

    Ephesians 3:10–11 (NIV): His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11*according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    And better yet, read a paragraph.

    Ephesians 3:7–13 (NIV): 7*I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 8*Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, 9*and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10*His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11*according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12*In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. 13*I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory.

    How can this be invoked into a plate tectonics discussion? αἰώνων is also used in verse 9 in addition to 11. The object of this whole paragraph is the proclamation of the gospel to Gentiles and making God’s wisdom known to rulers and authorities in heavenly realms.

    Not of this paragraph cares about geology.

    Also, let’s talk about the word theory. Now I am not an evolutionist. But I don’t argue against it saying it’s just a theory. Christians often argue that way taking theory as a synonym for conjecture. But as I understand science (which is little understanding) it’s more synonymous to hypothesis.

    What do I mean? I mean we have an idea. We can’t see it with our eyes but we have a reliable idea of how X works unless other evidence undermines it.

    For example, I work in electricity. We call it the electron theory, not the electron fact. We can’t see the electrons move but we’re pretty sure about how it works. And I bet you are to and don’t do all your electrical work at home with the breakers closed.

    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

    If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,431

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    Also, let’s talk about the word theory. Now I am not an evolutionist. But I don’t argue against it saying it’s just a theory. Christians often argue that way taking theory as a synonym for conjecture. But as I understand science (which is little understanding) it’s more synonymous to hypothesis.

    What do I mean? I mean we have an idea. We can’t see it with our eyes but we have a reliable idea of how X works unless other evidence undermines it.

    For example, I work in electricity. We call it the electron theory, not the electron fact. We can’t see the electrons move but we’re pretty sure about how it works. And I bet you are to and don’t do all your electrical work at home with the breakers closed.
    Always a good reminder about how the word theory is popularly used versus how it is used when describing various scientific theories. It's an easy word to throw around. Hypothesis is closer to being your best guess as to what is happening, then moving to experimentation and observation to see if that validates or invalidates the hypothesis.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  7. #97
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,431

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Why? This has nothing to do with his research as you well know. Herod practically rebuilt the Temple, yet was a very bad person. So now that temple was just crap?
    My point is that his research is not published in a geological journal. If it's serious research that serious geologists would consider, then has he tried submitting it to a more specific geological publication? And I have not found anyone particularly ridiculing his work, but it just seems ignored.

    I looked at Mr Pratt's webpage (http://www.davidpratt.info/homepage.htm) and I honestly don't know what he believes.

    Well good for you, but isn't all you say a THEORY, not FACT.
    No, just some observations.

    The N.T. wasn't written in English, but in Greek and the Greek text of Eph. 3:11 says « According to the purpose of the aions which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord ».
    I am well aware that the NT was written in Greek. That does no answer my question about how this fit into the discussion. TG kindly attempted to answer this one. If this is an important point then I think you need to expand upon it.


    Hydroplate THEORY is just that a THEORY not a FACT as is the platetectonics THEORY. The problem is that you are on the tip of your chair defending a THEORY as if it is a FACT. Since neither can be proven it is pointless to discuss this. These are my final words on this subject. Thank you for your time.

    Aristarkos
    You're welcome.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,966
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post

    [...]

    I am well aware that the NT was written in Greek. That does no answer my question about how this fit into the discussion. TG kindly attempted to answer this one. If this is an important point then I think you need to expand upon it.
    The purpose of the aions is what God has designed to come to terms with creation. The Greek word aion has it's equivalent in Hebrew, namely Olam. If you would do a serious study about that, you'd come to 5 aions or olamim.

    In Ecc. 1:10 the Hebrew says « ... it hath been already been in the olamim, which were before us ». So two, one from the seven day restoration until the flood and one before that. That is why we see a chaos in Gen. 1:2 while God created the heavens and the earth in 1:1, more on that later. There is an aion between the two verses. Eze. 28:11 — 19 tells us something about it and so does Isa. 14:14. Now we live in the third evil aion as Gal. 1:4 says in Greek.

    That this aion will stop as well we know from the words of the Lord. In Luke 20:34 — 36 we read: « And Jesus answering said unto them, The sons of this aion marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that aion, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the sons of God, being the sons of the resurrection ». So the Lord says we live in « this aion » and opposites it to « that aion ». The one He calls the regeneration in Mat. 19:28.

    So now we have four aions, the last is the one after that when the New Jerusalem descends on earth, after the 1000 year reign and the white throne judgment. What this has to do with plate tectonics is time. From the restoration in Gen. 1 until where we are now in the evil aion is ± 6000 years, from Scripture we know the last two will last a 1000 generations (Psa. 105:8) so 16000 — 20000 years making the total ± 26000 years. I'm taking it for the two last aions, even if we would have to double this number to 52000 years, it wouldn't make a difference for the subject at hand.

    Now come human scientists and they tell us that the world is 4.54 billion years old. This requires the first aion to last almost all of the 4.54 billion years. Not only that, but God creates only perfect things, even his creatures until they fall. He did not create the earth « tohu » which means « without form or empty » as we know from Isa. 45:18 which says according to YLT « For thus said Jehovah, Creator of heaven, He is God, Former of earth, and its Maker, He established it — not empty He prepared it, For inhabiting He formed it: 'I am Jehovah, and there is none else ». This same word is used in Gen. 1:2. How can anyone who believes in God and His Word believe a THEORY which denies what He says? Because it is interesting, because the scientist use numbers which no one can comprehend time wise? That's why I said, you can't serve Mammon and God.

    Aristarkos

  9. #99
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,431

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    The purpose of the aions is what God has designed to come to terms with creation. The Greek word aion has it's equivalent in Hebrew, namely Olam. If you would do a serious study about that, you'd come to 5 aions or olamim.

    <snip>

    So now we have four aions, the last is the one after that when the New Jerusalem descends on earth, after the 1000 year reign and the white throne judgment. What this has to do with plate tectonics is time. From the restoration in Gen. 1 until where we are now in the evil aion is ± 6000 years, from Scripture we know the last two will last a 1000 generations (Psa. 105:8) so 16000 — 20000 years making the total ± 26000 years. I'm taking it for the two last aions, even if we would have to double this number to 52000 years, it wouldn't make a difference for the subject at hand.
    This looks to be built upon some eschatological framework? At the end of the day we would both agree that God is the agent behind creation. We differ on the methodology.

    Now come human scientists and they tell us that the world is 4.54 billion years old. This requires the first aion to last almost all of the 4.54 billion years. Not only that, but God creates only perfect things, even his creatures until they fall.
    Genesis never tells us that creation was 'perfect', rather it was 'very good'. That is perhaps a subtle point, but I think it is important.

    How can anyone who believes in God and His Word believe a THEORY which denies what He says?
    Because it does not deny anything. The theory is the best explanatory framework for the reason why we find earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain ranges, and other natural features are found where they are. It is very useful in my field of geology for aiding in identifying prospective areas of specific mineral deposit types.

    That's why I said, you can't serve Mammon and God.
    Still not sure what wealth has got to do with this.

    Sorry, some bad cut and pasting in the previous. post Hopefully it makes sense.

    Sorry, some bad cut and pasting in the previous. post Hopefully it makes sense.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    2,993
    Blog Entries
    58

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Here’s my perspective friends. OE Plate tectonic theories are accurate. It’s a good model.

    From what I see tho, ( or believe ) is that the flood expedited the shift prior to us being born. The OE’s are stuck in slow-land (u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism) .

    The heat released from this possible rapid expansion could conceivably be absorbed by the massive oceans..to such a degree that they evaporated over the artic causing the one known ice age. Things moved rapidly.

    Most of the fossils were made during this year long deluge of mixing sediments. ( creatures need to be rapidly buried to form )

    Coal beds were formed as well with the burying of massive vegitation mats under slurry.

    It’s a fascinating view.

    *Don’t forget, they have been finding soft tissue in dinosaur fossils since the 60’s. Why?

    [ if you did not know this ask why ]

    Here’s my perspective friends. OE Plate tectonic theories are accurate. It’s a good model.

    From what I see tho, ( or believe ) is that the flood expedited the shift prior to us being born. The OE’s are stuck in slow-land (u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism) .

    The heat released from this possible rapid expansion could conceivably be absorbed by the massive oceans..to such a degree that they evaporated over the artic causing the one known ice age. Things moved rapidly.

    Most of the fossils were made during this year long deluge of mixing sediments. ( creatures need to be rapidly buried to form )

    Coal beds were formed as well with the burying of massive vegitation mats under slurry.

    It’s a fascinating view.

    *Don’t forget, they have been finding soft tissue in dinosaur fossils since the 60’s. Why?

    [ if you did not know this ask why ]
    “A” cannot be “A” & not “A” at the same time.

    מקום כניעה סך הכל

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Yuma, AZ where chocolate melts in the fridge
    Posts
    16

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    While I get that science isn’t as tidy as we’d all like, this seems simplistic. Electron theory seems to be lasting through multiple generations.
    I assume you call it "simplistic" because you never heard it before. For instance, astrophysicists reject all discussions about electron theory in space. They prefer analogies to Earthly weather and magnetic theories that they made up. It is not that "science isn't as tidy as we'd all like," it is a majestic mess. If you look into the history of the theory of evolution you will run across frequent references to geology and uniformitarianism.

    207,000 links: https://www.google.com/search?q=geol...+and+evolution

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    So you think the Flood took place *millions* of years ago--over 200 million years ago? You think Man has been around that long? You're right. I'm not comprehending you. I don't think I *can* comprehend you!
    What is your view on Genesis 1 creation week? I believe it is literally when plants were made, on day 6 , less than 7000 years ago, and the flood came during that 7000 year period. Thus when scientists claim that plants were around even before the PT boundary 600 million years ago, I go with the creation account, and place the flood somewhere within the geological layers since plants existed.

    By referring to scientists timeframes, this would indicate you have a less than literal view on creation week. Is that so?

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I may miss things yes. But in most cases I find people get impatient because they *assume* you don't understand, when actually you do. I don't think anybody here is wasting anybody's time. Most folks here are quite thoughtful.

    As to mountain ranges, my answer is and was that there was no perfect sphere of the earth back in 4-5000 BC. The Scriptural account in fact mentions high mountain ranges in the time of the Flood. That should suffice to show that the earth was not a perfect sphere--not even close. And if you don't accept the dating of rocks, why even argue anything from science?
    I believe the geologic layers are accurately expressed in science. I believe the dates are wrong, what was thought to be a constant decay rate has since proved to be fluctuating and they have not determined the extent of the cause/effect. I believe the assumption of evolution is incorrect, species will spread out of rare/unobserved environments when conditions suit, and this world dominance of a new species is more attributable to that proven process than evolution.

    The word for "mountain" also means hill, and what they thought of as high hills back then, are nothing compared to the mountain ranges that have formed long after creation week. Our highest mountains occurred AFTER creation week because the Himalayas have sea fossils near the top. Where I place the flood occurred before the major mountain building processes. If the ocean depths were no more than a few hundred metres low, and the hills no more than a few hundred metres high, then the existing volume of the water (enough to cover the planet by 2.5 km) is more than enough to fit biblical flood descriptions.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    5,807
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Prospector View Post
    I assume you call it "simplistic" because you never heard it before. For instance, astrophysicists reject all discussions about electron theory in space. They prefer analogies to Earthly weather and magnetic theories that they made up. It is not that "science isn't as tidy as we'd all like," it is a majestic mess. If you look into the history of the theory of evolution you will run across frequent references to geology and uniformitarianism.

    207,000 links: https://www.google.com/search?q=geol...+and+evolution
    It’s not as tidy as we’d like, it’s a majestic mess, yet you keep logging on to this website (no science to get us talking to each other, right?) and replying. Ok. Time for coffee.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prospector View Post
    I assume you call it "simplistic" because you never heard it before. For instance, astrophysicists reject all discussions about electron theory in space. They prefer analogies to Earthly weather and magnetic theories that they made up. It is not that "science isn't as tidy as we'd all like," it is a majestic mess. If you look into the history of the theory of evolution you will run across frequent references to geology and uniformitarianism.

    207,000 links: https://www.google.com/search?q=geol...+and+evolution
    It’s not as tidy as we’d like, it’s a majestic mess, yet you keep logging on to this website (no science to get us talking to each other, right?) and replying. Ok. Time for coffee.

    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

    If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    5,807
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Prospector View Post
    I assume you call it "simplistic" because you never heard it before. For instance, astrophysicists reject all discussions about electron theory in space. They prefer analogies to Earthly weather and magnetic theories that they made up. It is not that "science isn't as tidy as we'd all like," it is a majestic mess. If you look into the history of the theory of evolution you will run across frequent references to geology and uniformitarianism.

    207,000 links: https://www.google.com/search?q=geol...+and+evolution
    I’m not an evolutionist. And even I might be correct on that point, that’s far from making all of science a majestic mess. Any atheist could come to this site and say Christians and Christianity are a majestic mess because of the diversity of differences.

    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

    If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. evidence for God not enough....
    By ilovemetal in forum Apologetics and Evangelism
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Nov 5th 2018, 04:29 AM
  2. Evidence of God
    By Boomerang in forum Christians Answer
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Mar 23rd 2018, 07:53 PM
  3. Genesis chapter 6- Global Flood vs. Local Flood
    By DeafPosttrib in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Apr 1st 2011, 01:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •