Jump to content


Noah's Flood.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
76 replies to this topic

#61 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 August 2006 - 07:51 PM

Both the Bible and evolutionist agree that the early earth was mostly all land.


I was not aware of that biblical point.
The hypothesis for earths water is during it’s formation and cometary impact, when cool enough the water precipitated out.

The question is whether evolutionist can explain how so much water just came from nowhere.


natural planetary formation, many moons of Jupiter, Saturn are ice worlds, as are comets, there is plenty of water in our solar system.


We do have oceans, and the oceans are a constant reminder of the Flood. And since there are indeed marine fossils on the peaks of every mountain, including Mt.Everest, and there are several consistant historical accounts of a great Flood, then the Flood should be considered a sound historical and scientific account by all academic professors.


unfortunately, the evidence of a Noachian flood is non-existent in the geological strata, if you believe there is, what geologic records (presumably world wide) support such a flood.

re historical records – presume a person is floating in the ocean, how far is the horizon? About 8-ish klm say, if your in the middle of a big lake how can you be certain the whole world is similarly affected?


When history and science can agree with an issue there is no further need to argue against the evidence of such an event. There is plenty of signature evidence all over the world for such a Flood,


In your opinion, what is your favourite ‘scientific’ evidence for a Noachian flood? perhaps its worth debating, yes?


After all, what killed the dinosaurs? It was either the flood or some asteroid. If indeed there was some asteroid then why does the evolution timeline continue to upscale when logically it should down-scale back to simpler forms of life rather then up-scale to more advanced forms of life.


I’m not sure I follow this point. After the Kt impact, life did indeed almost have to re-start with the mammals.

Evolutionist have no solid premise for such an asteroid theory; and since such a calamity would wipe out even all plant life, I'd say that the asteroid theory is an overkill theory that somehow still gains acceptance through politics.


The Yucatan peninsular is site for the current Kt impact culprit, iridium layer hints at a meteor impact, mass extinction is a logical conclusion of such an impact. What’s wrong with that evidence?

The bigger the impact the bigger the disaster, no reason to say all plant life should be wiped out.

#62 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 03 August 2006 - 04:43 PM

I was not aware of that biblical point. 

#1.) The hypothesis for earths water is during it’s formation and cometary impact, when cool enough the water precipitated out.
natural planetary formation, many moons of Jupiter, Saturn are ice worlds, as are comets, there is plenty of water in our solar system.

#2.) unfortunately, the evidence of a Noachian flood is non-existent in the geological strata, if you believe there is, what geologic records (presumably world wide) support such a flood.

#3.) In your opinion, what is your favourite ‘scientific’ evidence for a Noachian flood? perhaps its worth debating, yes?

#4.) I’m not sure I follow this point.  After the Kt impact, life did indeed almost have to re-start with the mammals.
The Yucatan peninsular is site for the current Kt impact culprit, iridium layer hints at a meteor impact, mass extinction is a logical conclusion of such an impact. What’s wrong with that evidence?

The bigger the impact the bigger the disaster, no reason to say all plant life should be wiped out.

View Post


#1.) Your explanation is called an "ad hoc" one because it attempts to explain the unknowable in terms of the unknowable. Do you understand this concept?

#2.) There are marine fossils at the peaks of Mt.Everest as well as deserts and all other mountains. There is a fossil record of dinosaurs and even marine life that could not survive the fresh-to-salt water overflow. The entire fossil record agrees with the hostorical record.

#3.) I believe it because I believe that the Bible is God's word. I have written a piece I cannot paste here due to format problems; its called "IFOlogy" and if you write me I'll send you my research which proves that the Bible is not just a carnal record. I have worked hard in this investigation and still have two more very good sections to write on this one chapter of an e-book I'm writing. If you want to know the truth behind the UFO/Alien mystery then write me and you'll see that the Bible solves it perfectly! I'm not joking with you, its solved without compromising the message of the scriptures. So the fact that we earthlings were created by God and that there are consistant historical records that confirm a global flood, proves that there is something worth investigating here. write me at: fezzfiles2@yahoo.com for free paper. I am convinced that you'll change the way you look at the Bible after reading this :)

#63 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 August 2006 - 10:05 PM

#1.) Your explanation is called an "ad hoc" one because it attempts to explain the unknowable in terms of the unknowable. Do you understand this concept?


‘ad hoc’, means unplanned. I am not proposing anything more radical the planetary formation one would find during a normal google search (I presumed you were familiar with the concept of accretion). If you require a more detail explanation please let me know.

#2.) There are marine fossils at the peaks of Mt.Everest as well as deserts and all other mountains. There is a fossil record of dinosaurs and even marine life that could not survive the fresh-to-salt water overflow. The entire fossil record agrees with the hostorical record.


I take it then that you do not agree that because the continents drift, the sea bed can rise and form mountain chains, problem is Mt Everest not only has fossils at the top but all the way through to some considerable depth! Correct me if I am wrong here, but for a creationist model to produce something similar you would need some sort of mechanism where the fossil deposit was made all in one spot! Yes?

Please explain how the Himalayas was formed by your own reckoning, and we shall see if such a mechanism is consistent with what is found.

#3.) I believe it because I believe that the Bible is God's word.

I have no problem with what you believe to be true. But I do have a problem if you claim to have any scientific evidence to support creation/young earth, that is what I wish to chalange?

I have written a piece I cannot paste here due to format problems; its called "IFOlogy" and if you write me I'll send you my research which proves that the Bible is not just a carnal record. I have worked hard in this investigation and still have two more very good sections to write on this one chapter of an e-book I'm writing. If you want to know the truth behind the UFO/Alien mystery then write me and you'll see that the Bible solves it perfectly! I'm not joking with you, its solved without compromising the message of the scriptures. So the fact that we earthlings were created by God and that there are consistant historical records that confirm a global flood, proves that there is something worth investigating here. write me at: fezzfiles2@yahoo.com for free paper. I am convinced that you'll change the way you look at the Bible after reading this


hmmm, yes I read your new topic on the subject. Before I commit, I would request you write a brief summary (or small extract) and post it in the topic you made.

#64 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 05 August 2006 - 11:31 PM

‘ad hoc’, means unplanned.  I am not proposing anything more radical the planetary formation one would find during a normal google search (I presumed you were familiar with the concept of accretion).  If you require a more detail explanation please let me know.
I take it then that you do not agree that because the  continents drift, the sea bed can rise and form mountain chains, problem is Mt Everest not only has fossils at the top but all the way through to some considerable depth!  Correct me if I am wrong here, but for a creationist model to produce something similar you would need some sort of mechanism where the fossil deposit was made all in one spot! Yes?

Please explain how the Himalayas was formed by your own reckoning, and we shall see if such a mechanism is consistent with what is found.

I have no problem with what you believe to be true.  But I do have a problem if you claim to have any scientific evidence to support creation/young earth, that is what I wish to chalange?
hmmm, yes I read your new topic on the subject.  Before I commit, I would request you write a brief summary (or small extract) and post it in the topic you made.

View Post


Scienctist who deny that the fossils at the mountain peaks do not explain it in knowable terms. The Genesis accout of the Flood provides knowable historical narrative which correlates with the scientific evidence. Evolutionist use "speculation" to attempt to proof their "hypothesis" about the marine fossils. But when we really study this issue we'll find out that everything we know about the past is right here in the present now. Nobody was there to witness evolution, but Creation was recorded by the prophets that God revealed the truth to.

Also note that evolutionist deviate from their own timeline when trying to explain the fossils at the peaks of Everest and other mountains and deserts.

Now the topic of "IFOlolgy" is hard to study and understand, since one has to research this from both Biblical and scientific evidence. I've seen the evidence for what is falsly called "UFOlogy," and I know that what little solid evidence there is for UFOlogy leads us to the Biblical teaching of "Angels," both holy and unholy ones. My paper provides ancient evidence that concludes that the Bible is of a Divine origin. I believe that its worth the time in reading; though keep in mind that I have to write two more sections in the chapter, but what I do have written, I believe, will change the way you view the UFO-mystery because the Bible does indeed explain it thoroughly. Write me for the paper and I'll send it to you. Feel free to comment and give feedback on it.

Furthermore, evolutionist like DR.Kaku do not deny the UFO/Alien possibility and valid sightings of unexplained lights in the sky. Dr.Kaku said on the Science channel that the probability of life being some out there in existence in exactly 100% Kaku doesn't seem to know about the Bible ties with what he's certain of, but the evidence favors the Bible, not evolution.

God created angels before us humans. whether they live in the universe or in another universe outside of our known universe is actually unimportant at this point in conversation. The fact is, we are not along and both good and evil angels move amongst us every day without notice.

#65 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 August 2006 - 07:32 PM

Scienctist who deny that the fossils at the mountain peaks do not explain it in knowable terms.


no one is denying fossils can be found at mountain peaks. Geology explains the formation of mountain rages rather nicely IMO, what specifically don’t you like about such explinations.

The Genesis accout of the Flood provides knowable historical narrative which correlates with the scientific evidence. Evolutionist use "speculation" to attempt to proof their "hypothesis" about the marine fossils. But when we really study this issue we'll find out that everything we know about the past is right here in the present now. Nobody was there to witness evolution, but Creation was recorded by the prophets that God revealed the truth to.


Can you substantiate this with any scientific data? Else this is just opinion.

Also note that evolutionist deviate from their own timeline when trying to explain the fossils at the peaks of Everest and other mountains and deserts.


I have note noticed this at all, please provide a link to substantiate this claim please.

Now the topic of "IFOlolgy" is hard to study and understand, since one has to research this from both Biblical and scientific evidence. I've seen the evidence for what is falsly called "UFOlogy," and I know that what little solid evidence there is for UFOlogy leads us to the Biblical teaching of "Angels," both holy and unholy ones. My paper provides ancient evidence that concludes that the Bible is of a Divine origin. I believe that its worth the time in reading; though keep in mind that I have to write two more sections in the chapter, but what I do have written, I believe, will change the way you view the UFO-mystery because the Bible does indeed explain it thoroughly. Write me for the paper and I'll send it to you. Feel free to comment and give feedback on it.


No thank you, I would rather you post a brief extract first. It seems a little to “Eric von Danikin(sp)” for my tastes.

#66 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 12 August 2006 - 11:18 AM

Dr Kaku certainly does beleive that the statistical probability of life elsewhere in the universe is 1. However, I don't really see what that has to do with what we are discussing here. Let us say, for arguement's sake, that there ARE aliens on some other planet. They would exist either because of the same evolutionary theories propounded by Earth scientist, or because they were created at the same time as life on Earth was created. However, their actual existance does not prove which version is correct. I strongly suggest you read "The Demon Haunted World", by Carl Sagan.

#67 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 24 August 2006 - 09:23 PM

1- no one is denying fossils can be found at mountain peaks.  Geology explains the formation of mountain rages rather nicely IMO, what specifically don’t you like about such explinations.

2- No thank you, I would rather you post a brief extract first. It seems a little to “Eric von Danikin(sp)” for my tastes.

View Post


1- Those attempts to explain away written history are ad hoc assumptions with no grounds. Just a Big Guess. Do you believe everything that the Internet tells you? I've found more mistakes on wiki to believe that those wiki-dudes are reading too much Dan Brown mysery novels.

2- No, its not anything like Eric Von Danikin. My IFOlogy paper has been approve by my church has solid theology, one that solves the UFO/Alien mystery...if it ever was a mystery. The truth is already in the Bible and I wrote a good outlike for those who don't understand this.

#68 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 24 August 2006 - 09:46 PM

1- Dr Kaku certainly does beleive that the statistical probability of life elsewhere in the universe is 1.

2- However, I don't really see what that has to do with what we are discussing here. Let us say, for arguement's sake, that there ARE aliens on some other planet. They would exist either because of the same evolutionary theories propounded by Earth scientist, or because they were created at the same time as life on Earth was created. However, their actual existance does not prove which version is correct. I strongly suggest you read "The Demon Haunted World", by Carl Sagan.

View Post


1- Yes, Kaku is one of the most interesting thinkers in science today. He makes a point that the probablility of life existing somewhere is space-time is exactly 100%. Of course, in the multiverse that M-Theorist support, life could exist outside the known universe and still only have life on earth inside our universe. I've taken the time to study up on M-Theory and I have come to believe that the M in M-Theory stands for M-onotheism. Kaku also refers to F-Theory (father of theories) which I believe could represent more of a Y-Theory (YHWH & Y-oung universe).

2- The "Law of Identity" is very important when analyzing information, especially when one is studying origins. The Bible has the Identification of these aliens already written! IFOlogy is all over the pages of scriptures in both the OT & NT! The fingerprints of God are there, you just have to mine the scriptures to find the nuggets. Feel free to write if you want and I'll send you what I have finished so far in IFOlogy. IFOlogy is more evidence that the scriptures are divinely written ;)

#69 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 August 2006 - 01:44 PM

chance>
no one is denying fossils can be found at mountain peaks.  Geology explains the formation of mountain rages rather nicely IMO, what specifically don’t you like about such explinations.


Origen>
Those attempts to explain away written history are ad hoc assumptions with no grounds. Just a Big Guess. Do you believe everything that the Internet tells you? I've found more mistakes on wiki to believe that those wiki-dudes are reading too much Dan Brown mysery novels.


I do not rely on wiki or the internet, modern geology is far older than that, but we are debating on the internet so we are both reliant on what is available in that medium. But you have not been specific in regard to what explanations you find ‘ad hoc’, ‘no grounds’, ‘big guess’s and ‘mistakes’, you see it’s my position that such errors do not exist and would like the opportunity to prove it to you, and to do that I need you to find post one of these errors to discuss.




chance>
No thank you, I would rather you post a brief extract first. It seems a little to “Eric von Danikin(sp)” for my tastes.

Origen>
No, its not anything like Eric Von Danikin. My IFOlogy paper has been approve by my church has solid theology, one that solves the UFO/Alien mystery...if it ever was a mystery. The truth is already in the Bible and I wrote a good outlike for those who don't understand this.


Can you post a brief extract?

#70 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 August 2006 - 11:16 AM

Dr Kaku certainly does beleive that the statistical probability of life elsewhere in the universe is 1. However, I don't really see what that has to do with what we are discussing here. Let us say, for arguement's sake, that there ARE aliens on some other planet. They would exist either because of the same evolutionary theories propounded by Earth scientist, or because they were created at the same time as life on Earth was created. However, their actual existance does not prove which version is correct. I strongly suggest you read "The Demon Haunted World", by Carl Sagan.

View Post



It would be great fun to meet up with the aliens and see if thier bible matches up with ours :)

#71 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 August 2006 - 01:35 PM

It would be great fun to meet up with the aliens and see if thier bible matches up with ours :)

View Post


It would indeed, but "be careful what you wish for, lest it come true"! :)

What if: the aliens are far more, accomplished, civilised, compassionate and …atheistic? “and by the way we’ve have been recording the progress of your civilisation for some time now, you can get all 100 episodes on DVD, VHS and beta-max! :)

#72 FishFace

FishFace

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cheshire, UK

Posted 31 August 2006 - 06:29 AM

I'd just like to make the point that no geologist in the world denies that the Himalayas, of which Everest is a part, are fold mountains. If you took geography or geology, even at high school, you'd know that the Himalayas were formed from an ancient sea bed (we call the ocean the Tethys Ocean) which was then thrust upwards into the range we sea today when the Indo-Australian plate collided with the Eurasian plate. The Indo-Austrian plate is still moving into the Eurasian plate today (about 67mm/year), and as a consequence, the Himalayas are moving upwards at about 5mm/year (as well as moving upwards, they are eroded downards, but at present, erosion is slower than "thrust.")

This is a unilaterally accepted theory - although that doesn't guarantee its truth in any way, it should make you think. What sound evidence do you have to disregard it?

Anyway, if you suppose that the flood is true, how do you explain geological faults and folds? 4,000 years is not nearly enough time for all this to have happened; we'd all have been killed if that much activity was going on beneath our feet!

As an aside, I hope you realise that if you subscribe to young-earth-creationism, almost every bit of geography, geology, biology, and a lot of chemistry and physics ceases to make sense. All geological pieces of information, for example, will talk about how the land you stand on was created millions of years ago, by, perhaps a meteorite, or a glacier, or a volcanic intrusion. If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, none of this makes any sense.

#73 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2006 - 07:17 AM

As an aside, I hope you realise that if you subscribe to young-earth-creationism, almost every bit of geography, geology, biology, and a lot of chemistry and physics ceases to make sense. All geological pieces of information, for example, will talk about how the land you stand on was created millions of years ago, by, perhaps a meteorite, or a glacier, or a volcanic intrusion. If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, none of this makes any sense.


There is no observable science that does not agree with a YEC interpetation of reality. Its only the speculation that disagrees with any biblial interpetation, and I of course agree with you that none of it makes any sense...

Terry

#74 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2006 - 02:19 AM

There is no observable science that does not agree with a YEC interpetation of reality.  Its only the speculation that disagrees with any biblial interpetation, and I of course agree with you that none of it makes any sense...

Terry

View Post


There is plenty of scientific observation that contradicts YEC. Off the top of my head, a vast universe beyond 6000 light years that we can actually see is one observation.

#75 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 04 September 2006 - 01:21 AM

We could argue in circles if we wanted to about this Flood topic, but does that hide the truth? There is scientific evidence that has been interpretated two ways: Evolution model and the creation model. But do we throw out the historical records of the Flood that were global just because of politics? Do we through out the "Law of Identity" because of interpretated evidence for evolutionary explanation of marine fossils at the peaks of Everest? Why is history always attacked these days by atheistic philosophers?
In todays world, if we don't like it we'll rewrite it! Who cares if A is A and the Flood accounts world wide consistently match up with interpretations of scientific data. I guess Newton was a stupid Christian since he claimed the Flood has a fact of history. Then of course, the Flood was never really an issue of skepticism until Social Darwinism became mainstream throught. Denial after denial after denial, we can actually deny knowable history that matches scientific data and feel good about it. If it doesn't offend somebody its gotta be correct, right?

#76 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 04 September 2006 - 05:20 AM

There is no observable science that does not agree with a YEC interpetation of reality.  *snip*
Terry

View Post

This is only true in the sense that under the orchestration of an omnipotent God, obviously, anything is possible. God could have created folded and eroded mountains, mountains of sediment rocks, lifted conglomerate rocks, isotope traces, etc, etc, etc, at the wave of His hand.

IF, on the other hand, we are to assume that the world acts at least generally to the rules we have come to know as the laws of nature, then it is utterly impossible that Earth is not vastly more ancient than biblical timescales allow it to be.

The only "speculation" in this is the assumption that the laws of nature apply, and that "speculation" is supported by the fact that nobody has, as of yet, been able to show as much as a single verifiable incidence where they don't.

Hans

#77 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2006 - 07:38 AM

This is only true in the sense that under the orchestration of an omnipotent God, obviously, anything is possible. God could have created folded and eroded mountains, mountains of sediment rocks, lifted conglomerate rocks, isotope traces, etc, etc, etc, at the wave of His hand.

IF, on the other hand, we are to assume that the world acts at least generally to the rules we have come to know as the laws of nature, then it is utterly impossible that Earth is not vastly more ancient than biblical timescales allow it to be.

The only "speculation" in this is the assumption that the laws of nature apply, and that "speculation" is supported by the fact that nobody has, as of yet, been able to show as much as a single verifiable incidence where they don't.

Hans

View Post


Hans,

I replyed to this another thread that I opened.

All,

I'm closing this thread since its very old, and has really gotten off topic.

Terry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users