GiantHouseKey
Well-Known Member
Why not, they make everything else smaller than it realistically is.
Make's God look bigger.
GhK.
-
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
Why not, they make everything else smaller than it realistically is.
Make's God look bigger.
GhK.
"a. Reflect a moment. You can't have both the basins shallower, and mountains lower. What you're doing here is making the earth smaller than it is. When a trench opens up somewhere on earth, a mountain range shoves up on the other side of the plate. There's a fixed quantity of land, and it just moves around; it doesn't evaporate and magically re-appear."
None of us were eyewitnesses to the events recorded in Genesis 6-8. So we rely on physical and testimonial evidence for the veracity of the account. Jesus Christ is a reliable eyewitness (according to the Bible) and confirms the account in Genesis is both factual and meaningful to us today. (Matthew 24:37-39).
What evidence exists fits well with belief in a global deluge, and certainly doesn't disprove it.
The account in Psalms 104:6-9 could apply to the flood, or at least show the effects water under divine control can have. As an example, a round ball of clay can be pushed in with 2 thumbs, creating 'valleys' and raising 'mountains' . The Creator could easily have done the same to our planet.
Apparently the earth was surrounded by a blanket of water above the atmosphere that controlled a uniformly warm temperature on earth. Unleashing this vast water in the deluge, the earth would undergo cataclysmic changes. The temperature would plunge as the waters no longer kept an even temperature on earth. Thus, animals could freeze in place.
I don't know the answer to all the questions that may be asked. The Bible is silent about dinosaurs, and they may have been extinct by the time of the Flood. Nothing in the Bible precludes other forces acting over long eons of time. The Bible does not teach that the Earth was created in 6 twenty-four hour days. These were creative epochs when God took specific action toward the planet that already existed, perhaps for billions of years.
You and I may choose to examine the evidence and draw different conclusions. I respect your right to do so. I am simply sharing why I believe. There are other evidences to support the belief in a global deluge. If you are interested in further discussion, I am happy to share these with you.
Geologists and other scientists opinions and interpretation of evidence are shaped by their peers, their background, and their emotions. Most scientists support evolution, not so much because the evidence to support it is overwhelming, but peer pressure is. I'm sure you are not implying that not one person of science believes the Bible's account of the Flood. But even if that were true, lack of belief does not disprove what is true.
None of us were eyewitnesses to the events recorded in Genesis 6-8. So we rely on physical and testimonial evidence for the veracity of the account. Jesus Christ is a reliable eyewitness (according to the Bible) and confirms the account in Genesis is both factual and meaningful to us today. (Matthew 24:37-39).
What evidence exists fits well with belief in a global deluge, and certainly doesn't disprove it.
The account in Psalms 104:6-9 could apply to the flood, or at least show the effects water under divine control can have. As an example, a round ball of clay can be pushed in with 2 thumbs, creating 'valleys' and raising 'mountains' . The Creator could easily have done the same to our planet.
Apparently the earth was surrounded by a blanket of water above the atmosphere that controlled a uniformly warm temperature on earth. Unleashing this vast water in the deluge, the earth would undergo cataclysmic changes. The temperature would plunge as the waters no longer kept an even temperature on earth. Thus, animals could freeze in place.
I don't know the answer to all the questions that may be asked. The Bible is silent about dinosaurs, and they may have been extinct by the time of the Flood. Nothing in the Bible precludes other forces acting over long eons of time. The Bible does not teach that the Earth was created in 6 twenty-four hour days. These were creative epochs when God took specific action toward the planet that already existed, perhaps for billions of years.
You and I may choose to examine the evidence and draw different conclusions. I respect your right to do so. I am simply sharing why I believe. There are other evidences to support the belief in a global deluge. If you are interested in further discussion, I am happy to share these with you.
Geologists and other scientists opinions and interpretation of evidence are shaped by their peers, their background, and their emotions. Most scientists support evolution, not so much because the evidence to support it is overwhelming, but peer pressure is. I'm sure you are not implying that not one person of science believes the Bible's account of the Flood. But even if that were true, lack of belief does not disprove what is true.
No. The author of Matthew, who arguably never met the man, wrote a dialogue in which Jesus 'confirms' the Genesis account. There is zero reason to believe that Jesus, if he in fact existed, actually said such a thing, nor is there any reason to believe that he had any more basis for believing in Genesis than did any other observant Jew of the time. That evidence is about as 'reliable' as a stale fortune cookie.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Apart from the fact that localised floods leave traces and can be detected – and no such traces exist for a global flood.
Except that geology shows how those mountains formed under plate tectonic interactions.
Three problems:
1) Such a layer would have blocked out the sun freezing the planet.
2) What kept that layer above the earth? The phrase ‘physically unstable’ springs to mind.
3) Where did this water disappear to?
Actually the kinetic energy released by the water falling from such a height would have baked every living thing on the planet.
I suspect you will use ‘god did it’ as the answer.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, and we reserve the right to explain why you are wrong.
I have to see these evidence for the global flood.
Actually, studying geology is pretty corrosive to believing in the flood. When you understand what the signs of flooding look like, and realise that there are no such signs found in a single chronological layer across the world, it makes the idea of the flood pretty hard to hold on to.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
You could disprove the global flood after studying geology for a week lol, or reading wikipedia's geology page.
If there was a global flood, there would be huge huge layers of silt mixed in with highly organic layers of sediment. This is because when the water miraculously disappeared the suspended particles would group together in low lying areas.
Think about it, if you dig a hole a meter deep, what sits on top of the water once the rain stops?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Autodidact said:
Maybe that's what you use. The rest of us use this thing we call science. You might want to try it.
Well your first problem would be to establish that there was such a person.
How would you know, since you don't rely on evidence? Oh, you mean the Bible? Well that is the book where the myth is recorded. But of course, you can't use the Bible to test the veracity of the Bible--surely even you see why?
Wait, hold on a sec while I stop laughing. O.K.--I thought we were talking about evidence.
Alright, if God comes along with His giant thumbs and pushes the earth in places, it still doesn't get smaller--at least not without someone noticing. *wipes away tears of laughter and attempts to continue as though this were a serious conversation.*
Really? Why is that apparent? Is there an iota of evidence of any such thing? Is such a thing even possible? Do you have the remotest idea?
Hey, once you go into magic territory, everything is possible. Why not just say that God magicked enough water into existence, and magicked it away again? Why go making up all this stuff that isn't even in the Bible?
In fact, you don't know the answer to any of them.
rusra, I realize you're not big on rational thought, but do you have any idea what I mean when I say you're assuming what you're trying to prove?
It's not me, rusra, it's the entire scientific community.
And I respect your right to be wrong, but why would you want to?
Oh, I thought you were presenting evidence.
NO, there are not.
How about if you start with one?
You seem to be under the impression that I haven't read all of your "evidences" a hundred times, and their refutations, and shredded them into confetti myself. But feel free to lay them out for our reading enjoyment.
I know. That dumb ole science. It's just a bunch of prejudice and bias. It's amazing it works! Why do you suppose it does? Or don't you think it does?
rusra, it looks like you've been reading creationist websites. Unfortunately for you, each and every one of them is full of lies and arguments so weak a kindergartener can destroy them. If you don't want to sound dishonest and ignorant, I advise you to avoid them like the plague.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Incorrect, the pressure on the earth would have caused severe structural damage to the earth. It is likely that, in the event that much water could actually be held in ther sky (which it can't), the earth would have imploded due to pressure/weight force of the water.
That was not a very intelligent thing to say sir. The reason science was held back in the dark ages was because science had to be conditioned to fit within a specific biblical time frame.
I did geology at university as a subject for a year, your assumptions are incorrect. What they do is the dig a hole with a bore, and tell us to analyse whats happened in the ground over the last 100,000 years or so. Soil cannot conceal secrets very well. I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me how i acquire my knowledge when you yourself havn't got a clue what you're talking about.
It doesn't take a PHd in geology to disprove a global flood.
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. (The Genesis Flood, by John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris, 1967, p. xvii.)
The flood waters apparently are still here, in Earth's oceans covering some 70% of Earth's surface.
Well, in that case, I guess you're right. :biglaugh:
The simple experiment with a ball of clay proves you were incorrect in saying the Earth's surface could not be shaped. Your ridicule of me is not proof that you are correct. The great weight of water, and especially water in motion, has the ability to change landscapes dramatically. I don't think too many thinking people would deny this.
Your ridicule is typical of 'scientific' harassment of those whose beliefs differ from what is considered mainstream. And most unfortunate.
An article in The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments: Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidencebut its proponents dont want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.
The same may be said for those who ridicule others who accept the truthfulness of the Bible's account of the global deluge.
... producing, among other things, gaping chasms and flakes. :yes:
themadhair
Well-Known Member
I made a video specifically debunking this interpretation/presupposition argument.
YouTube - Not merely a difference of interpretation.
The problem you have with this argument rusra02 is that when you make an hypothesis people can then look for more evidence to test your hypothesis. This is how science works and when flood geologists presented their ideas real geologists went and tested them.
Please calculate the amount of water needed to cover even the highest mountains in water. I dare you to perform such a calculation, because you would realise that all the oceans, seas, lakes, ice-caps and rivers dont have anything near the amount of water required for the global flood. In fact, it is orders of magnitude too little. This isnt a minor problem.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Please note that Professor McCampbell did not write that a single syllable in Morris's screed contains an iota of truth.
This may come as difficult for you, but think. The water covers 70% of the earth. That leaves you another 30% to cover, part of which is three miles high. There isn't enough water.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
1. The earth is not a ball of clay.
2. I didn't say it couldn't be shaped; it's shaped all the time. The surface goes down in some places (like the Mariana trench) and up in others (like the Rocky Mountains.) The surface of the earth is dynamic. What does not happen is that the quantity, the volume, suddenly and magically becomes larger or smaller IN TOTAL. The total surface remains the same--surely you see why?
No, the evidence does.
Well, it's not so much water, as continental drift, but the key point is this: It goes up in one place, and down in another. The planet itself does not shrink or grow. Do you agree?
Your problem is that your view differs from the mainstream, it's that it's wrong.
But of course, not being a Biologist, he wouldn't know, would he? Would you like to review the evidence for The Theory of Evolution (ToE?) You will be amazed.
Oh, but he's a notorious liar, didn't you know that?
So basically, you're opposed to science?
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
rusra:
Here are some of the problems you would need to overcome:
1. There isn't enough water on earth, including that in the atmosphere and under the earth, to cover the entire surface of the earth with water.
2. We know what kind of evidence a flood leaves in the earth. That evidence, of a simultaneous worldwide flood, is absent.
3. The cultures in India, China and Egypt continued to flourish and record their history, oblivious of the fact that they were underwater.
4. The flood story is impossible on every page. Here's just a tiny example: How many creatures (within an order of magnitude) did Noah take on board the ark? How big did the ark have to be to accommodate them?
So far you have utterly failed to disprove #1, and haven't even attempted the rest. As I say, your problem is that you've been listening to Young Earth Creationists (YECs). They are a collective of liars, charlatans and ignoramuses, with an occasional eccentric for variety.
I'll put it another way. For you to be right, every Geologist, Paleontologist, Archeologist, Anthropologist, Biologist, Astronomer and Cosmologist on Earth would have to be wrong. In other words, you would need to show that Science doesn't work. And use your computer to do it. Good luck with that.
Here are some of the problems you would need to overcome:
1. There isn't enough water on earth, including that in the atmosphere and under the earth, to cover the entire surface of the earth with water.
2. We know what kind of evidence a flood leaves in the earth. That evidence, of a simultaneous worldwide flood, is absent.
3. The cultures in India, China and Egypt continued to flourish and record their history, oblivious of the fact that they were underwater.
4. The flood story is impossible on every page. Here's just a tiny example: How many creatures (within an order of magnitude) did Noah take on board the ark? How big did the ark have to be to accommodate them?
So far you have utterly failed to disprove #1, and haven't even attempted the rest. As I say, your problem is that you've been listening to Young Earth Creationists (YECs). They are a collective of liars, charlatans and ignoramuses, with an occasional eccentric for variety.
I'll put it another way. For you to be right, every Geologist, Paleontologist, Archeologist, Anthropologist, Biologist, Astronomer and Cosmologist on Earth would have to be wrong. In other words, you would need to show that Science doesn't work. And use your computer to do it. Good luck with that.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Wait.... are you saying that Granite is like clay?
As much as I trust a lawyer to tell me what evidence science has.... I think I'll stick with what geologists, biologists and so on have to say. (not to mention my own experience)
Just like I wouldn't go to a dentist to get my kidney removed.
Care to explain how a global flood could actually do this?
Note: while I don't work in geology now, I've studied geology and geotechnical engineering up to the graduate level, so don't be afraid to get technical in your response.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Phillip E. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern founder of the ID movement. Also claims HIV does not cause AIDS.:foot:
You are assuming the huge mountains existing today were as tall as in Noah's day.
As mentioned in previous posts, some scientists say there is evidence this was not the case. The global deluge could itself cause huge changes to the Earth, completely reshaping the earth's surface. No one alive today can say with certainty what the pre-flood world landscape was.