Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
No you can't. We find you suspect for even mentioning, if at all true, yo were an Atheist.
:sarcastic
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The flood in Genesis
- Thread starter Just_me_Mike
- Start date
No you can't. We find you suspect for even mentioning, if at all true, yo were an Atheist.
:sarcastic
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yea..I've been saying this for a long time now.....even at the beginnings of this thread...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Because...on some level he thinks bringing up tree rings may help his creationists argument but it doesn't and I see it as a deflection from the original questions about soil samples and layers and how NO credible geologist would backup the flood story the bible claims happened.
Penguin's statement is revealing of the haughty attitude manifest by many so-called persons of science. It is typical of the personal attacks made in this thread against believers in the Flood. Anyone who interprets evidence outside the orthodox view is considered a quack or worse, a heretic, and the 'scientific' inquisition quickly rush with the verbal abuse and threats to career that keep many honest hearted scientists afraid to speak their mind. Thus the supporters of keeping God out of the picture can silence dissent before it arises. So be it. But truth will not be suppressed, any more than false religion could suppress the truth about scientific facts.
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student.
Geologists have had to change the shifting theories they proposed in the past, and continue to do so. Concerning their theory of ice ages, They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor.Planet EarthIce Ages, by Windsor Chorlton, 1983, pp. 54, 55, 57.
No one alive today was alive to see the pre-Flood world, which was a very different place, according to the Bible. The Flood unleashed unimaginable devastation upon this planet, forces that radically changed the Earth. The Bible speaks of these changes, as previous posts mentioned. No one can clearly say what the Flood did to the geologic record. So humility is in order for all of us.
Every effort to discredit the Bible over the centuries has failed. And the reason is simple. the Bible is God's word, not man's. (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Stop pushing your own agenda here. You have no idea what you're on about.
Listen to me very carefully here:
Erosion takes place over millions of years. If there was a flood, erosion patterns would have been pretty much destroyed. The clues are in mountain ranges. If the world was completely covered in water, erosion traits would be the same when the mountain composition is the same. The Rocky mountians erode much differently to the Appalachian Mountain ranges. Both ranges as a result of road cutting can be seen to exhibit great folding and sedimentary thrusted faults. So essentially they're the same (in basic terms) geologically, and about the same age.
Tell me, since we're all wrong and you're right, why this is the case?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
A RELATIVELY "DRY" FLOOD
The geologic record contains evidence of a wide variety of ancient environments, including ancient oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, soils and deserts, it is not a record of "a year-long Flood." There are desert strata, dried out lake beds, dried up river beds, paleosols (soil horizons), layers of rootlets at different horizons, layers of forests at different horizons, fossilized ant nests, termite nests, fragile wasp cocoons, cells from bees nests, dinosaur nests and eggs, reptile nests and eggs (in the Chinle Formation of the Petrified National Forest), bird nests and eggs (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming), fossilized holes left by worms, fossilized rodent burrows, tracks, trails and markings left by land-dwelling animals, even animal dung in its original position of deposition as it dried, cracked and hardened on solid ground. The geological evidence is clear that DRY land existed at many different periods throughout the past with land animals continuing to walk around, deposit dung, woo mates, build hives, nests or burrows, lay eggs, hatch those eggs ("empty hatched egg" fossils), then raise their young (then repeat the process), such evidence being found at different horizons, or even in horizons right above each other in the geological record. The fact is, deserts formed, lakes formed and dried up, rivers formed and dried up, soils formed, layers of small rootlets had time to grow, then be wiped out and grow again at different horizons, including multiple layers of forests that required time to grow, die and re-grow.
Edward T. Babinski
Bachelor of Science, Biology
Why Isn't "Flood Geology" Accepted Today?
The geologic record contains evidence of a wide variety of ancient environments, including ancient oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, soils and deserts, it is not a record of "a year-long Flood." There are desert strata, dried out lake beds, dried up river beds, paleosols (soil horizons), layers of rootlets at different horizons, layers of forests at different horizons, fossilized ant nests, termite nests, fragile wasp cocoons, cells from bees nests, dinosaur nests and eggs, reptile nests and eggs (in the Chinle Formation of the Petrified National Forest), bird nests and eggs (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming), fossilized holes left by worms, fossilized rodent burrows, tracks, trails and markings left by land-dwelling animals, even animal dung in its original position of deposition as it dried, cracked and hardened on solid ground. The geological evidence is clear that DRY land existed at many different periods throughout the past with land animals continuing to walk around, deposit dung, woo mates, build hives, nests or burrows, lay eggs, hatch those eggs ("empty hatched egg" fossils), then raise their young (then repeat the process), such evidence being found at different horizons, or even in horizons right above each other in the geological record. The fact is, deserts formed, lakes formed and dried up, rivers formed and dried up, soils formed, layers of small rootlets had time to grow, then be wiped out and grow again at different horizons, including multiple layers of forests that required time to grow, die and re-grow.
Edward T. Babinski
Bachelor of Science, Biology
Why Isn't "Flood Geology" Accepted Today?
rusra02;
No one alive today was alive to see the pre-Flood world, which was a very different place, according to the Bible. The Flood unleashed unimaginable devastation upon this planet, forces that radically changed the Earth. The Bible speaks of these changes, as previous posts mentioned. No one can clearly say what the Flood did to the geologic record. So humility is in order for all of us.
Every effort to discredit the Bible over the centuries has failed. And the reason is simple. the Bible is God's word, not man's. (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
rusra02 ~ You have not explained to us how Archaeologist, who are trained to study past history, have not found any evidence of a globe world flood for the last 12,000 years. Of the 300 archaeologist I surveyed not one of them has found any proof that a Genesis deluge had flooded the world in the last 12,000 years. You say it happened about 4000 years ago. In Amihai Mazar book "Archaeology of the land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE" he points out that for the last 12,000 years people have lived in the land of the bible undisturbed from any Big biblical type flood. Mazar's overview of the biblical life and all the archaeological evidence for the last 12,000 years is without parallel. Mazar is a senior lecturer at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Have you ever been to Israel to check out what he says? As we have said before you don't know what you are talking about. The evidence of truth blinds you from reallity.:yes:
No one alive today was alive to see the pre-Flood world, which was a very different place, according to the Bible. The Flood unleashed unimaginable devastation upon this planet, forces that radically changed the Earth. The Bible speaks of these changes, as previous posts mentioned. No one can clearly say what the Flood did to the geologic record. So humility is in order for all of us.
Every effort to discredit the Bible over the centuries has failed. And the reason is simple. the Bible is God's word, not man's. (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
rusra02 ~ You have not explained to us how Archaeologist, who are trained to study past history, have not found any evidence of a globe world flood for the last 12,000 years. Of the 300 archaeologist I surveyed not one of them has found any proof that a Genesis deluge had flooded the world in the last 12,000 years. You say it happened about 4000 years ago. In Amihai Mazar book "Archaeology of the land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE" he points out that for the last 12,000 years people have lived in the land of the bible undisturbed from any Big biblical type flood. Mazar's overview of the biblical life and all the archaeological evidence for the last 12,000 years is without parallel. Mazar is a senior lecturer at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Have you ever been to Israel to check out what he says? As we have said before you don't know what you are talking about. The evidence of truth blinds you from reallity.:yes:
Smoke
Done here.
As far as I know, Autodidact has never been a Christian, but you don't have to be a Christian to know more about Christianity than the average Christian. As for me, I was a Christian for far longer than 20 years, and I'm prepared to match my knowledge of Christianity -- or Autodidact's, for that matter -- to yours any day. So how about trying to have a rational discussion instead of a spitting contest?
Smoke
Done here.
The Bible can never be discredited to people who are determined to believe in it, because the ignorant believers will believe any damn fool thing as long as it's in the Bible, and educated believers will always say, "Oh, it's not meant to be taken literally."
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It's as simploe as this, rusra. There never was any such flood. If you believe there was, you're wrong. That's not a personal attack, it's just the facts.
Yup. If you presuppose that we can learn about the natural world through the scientific method, you accept that there never was any such flood. If you presuppose that the Bible is a literal natural history book, despite its horrible track record and wild innacuracies, you believe there was. Which camp are you in?
Of course. That's how science works. It gets more and more right. The Bible starts out wrong and stays wrong.
Yup. We know better than we used to. Your point? It remains true that, because it constantly improves its knowledge, science remains the single best way to learn about the natural world. Do you disagree?
Or anyone alive ever, since there never was any such thing.
No, it didn't, because it didn't happen. Saying so doesn't make it so
The Bible speaks of talking snakes and people being turned into salt, the sun standing still in the sky and people living inside the belly of fish. But none of it ever happened.
Yes we can. It did nothing, because it didn't happen.
Yet you arrogantly deny all of modern science, without even beginning to understand it. Now that's arrogance.
Are you joking? So you're saying that donkeys can talk, and you can see the four corners of the earth from a single spot, that the firmament has windows that open to let waters from above pour down, and leprosy can be cured with the blood of a bird? And none of this has been discredited? So basically you reject all scientific advances of the last 2000 years?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Look rusra, you're entitled to believe any weird thing you want; just don't try to claim it has a scintilla of scientific evidence supporting; it doesn't.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So basically, rusra, if I understand you, what you're saying is that all of science is wrong, and if we want to know what actually happened, we should read the Bible? Is that right? Because science says one thing, and the Bible says the opposite; they can't both be right.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
“When the consensus of scholarship says one thing and the Word of God another, the consensus of scholarship can go plumb to hell for all I care. America is not a country for a dissenter to live in.”
Billy Sunday 1912
Billy Sunday 1912
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
We "people of science" (as opposed to you people of myth) believe that it is possible to learn about the world using science. It's working pretty well so far.
"Heretic" is a religious term, used to silence dissent. Science welcomes dissent. That doesn't make it correct, just permissible. When was the last time scientists burned someone at the stake for disagreeing with them?
You keep confusing "supporters of God" with "Young Earth Creationists." Many times more people support God that believe in Young Earth Creationism. No one is trying to persuade you that God doesn't exist; that's not a scientific issue. What we're persuading you is that He never inflicted a global flood on the world.
Exactly. When religion tried to suppress the truth, it failed, and science won out.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
And yet....for the most part...he is incorrect and you are totally incorrect... You give me a flood story....and I'm not off the cuff trying to attack it or discredit it....I want more proof.....and so far no one concurs with your biblical assumptions. If you can figure out why societies before, during and after the flood were thriving then we can talk....because it appears these cultures were not affected. Let's start with the Sumerians, or even the Chinese...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Thank you for putting it so bluntly. We definitely have both types of believers here on RF.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I've been busy. The Bible contains a written record of ancient events and people; archaeology tries to recover information about these events and people by examining whatever traces of them can be found still remaining in the soil. However, these remains are usually very incomplete and open to various interpretations. In this regard, in his book Archaeology of the Land of the Bible10,000−586 B.C.E., Amihai Mazar comments: Archaeological field work . . . is to a great extent an art as well as a combination of training and professional skill. No rigid methodology can ensure success, and flexibility and creative thought by field directors are mandatory. The character, talent, and common sense of the archaeologist are no less important than his training and the resources available to him. (italics and underline added). Mr. Mazar thus admits the limitations of archaeology as a definitive science.
Other archaeologists themselves admit the limitations of their science. Yohanan Aharoni, for example, explains: When it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgements and hypotheses to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture. Regarding the dates assigned to various discoveries, he adds: We must always remember, therefore, that not all dates are absolute and are in varying degrees suspect
You state "not one of [archaeologists] found evidence that a genesis deluge had flooded the world". Many archeologists do point to traditions of a flood in cultures around the world as evidence of a historical flood really occurring.
Prince Mikasa, a well-known archaeologist, stated: Was there really a Flood? . . . The fact that the flood actually took place has been convincingly proved.
There is abundant evidence for those willing to see it, as mentioned in previous posts.
Having said the above, disbelief by men, whatever their education, is no reason to reject Bible truth. Time and again, the Bible has proved to be accurate history, and time and again attackers of the Bible have been forced to recant.
I do not expect attacks on God's Word will stop. Nonetheless, sincere truth seekers should not allow these attacks to dissuade them from considering the evidence for themselves, and thus "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine".
(I Thessalonians 5:21)
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Evidence:
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
I quote the above because I don’t think rusra02 knows what the word ‘evidence’ means.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I think, he thinks it's someone who says something vague that conforms to his views.
wa:do