Jump to content


Photo

The Flood


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

#1 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 11 June 2011 - 12:15 PM

ok menssss,lol

another group of yecers needs our help, strictly scientifically speaking what suppports the global flood idea and also problems with the the idea of the colorado river being the source of the grand canyon is for one. i hear geologists have abandoned that theory for a local large lake breaking its damn.can anyone find a good science source for that?

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 June 2011 - 04:25 PM

ok menssss,lol

another group of yecers needs our help, strictly scientifically speaking what suppports the global flood idea and also problems with the the idea of the colorado river being the source of the grand canyon is for one. i hear geologists have abandon that theory for a local large lake breaking its damn.can anyone find a good science source for that?


Here are some links for you from my site on this very issue:

Grand Canyon.
Where is the water for flood.
Noah's Flood and Geologic Column.

To sum it up:
1) The water for the "world Wide Flood" has been found.
2) The working mechanism for putting water into the upper mantle is there (boiling point raised high enough due to extreme pressures from flood).
3) We have a working mechanism for where the sediments went that washed out of the Canyon That much sediment just does not disappear unless raging water from a flood washed it into the upper mantle. The canyon has a major fault line that runs right through it. So we have the drain plug (fault line) for the flood to explain where the sediment went. They have nothing.
4) Then we have the horizontal wear marks being the same on top and bottom of Canyon. Wear marks that should be gone on the top part of the canyon because of all the years it's been exposed to weathering.

The thing you are going to find when you present this evidence. Is that most evolutionists don't care if your evidence is better than theirs. Evolution is basically an atheist's justification for believing there is no God. Why do you think they go to Christian sites to debate it and refuse to stay on their supposed scientific sites? Because if evolution were as scientific as they claim, there would be zero things to debate on a Christian forum. But find just one atheist that would agree with you. They cannot resist because it justifies what they claim does not exist and yet don't even realize debating it actually proves it does exist.

#3 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 11 June 2011 - 04:42 PM

i will put that to use. and yes i do find it odd that an athiest would debate forever and ever on this knowing they are right. none of us aside from the attempt to learn from others or an attempt to convert would do that. and i think the later is the case.

i asked and athiest why he is on the christian forum and his reponse was to learn about christians etc.

well one can learn in church or from asking them so i know that to be a lie.i'm on spaceport and i hardely post there except to ask questions on current theories and i know they wont change so i dont bother with them.they all know that i am a creationist and i let them come to me if they wish.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 June 2011 - 11:39 PM

What I find funny is to find a forum where no one knows me. And have them jump into a debate with me using all the old arguments as they will do. And I destroy them all and they back off. Then they google my user name and find out who I am. Then the whole attitude changes.

People say: Why don;t you use a different user name? I tell them I have nothing to hide, so why hide behind different names? But what's ironic is that almost every atheist that joins here will not use their normal user name they use on their main forums. They want to hide, and they don't us to google their name and find out who they really are, what they really think about Christians and creationists, etc... They want "zero" tracing back to the real them because just like what they believe, they cannot face the reality of truth.

What ever forum you are at, just Google some of the user names (only the ones that you know are not common names). 99% of the time you cannot find them because they hide behind the name they choose just for that forum. That is why you will see user names that are not even a word that can be pronounced. But sometimes you get lucky and find them posting somewhere else. And when you do more than 90% of the time their profile at one forum does not even match the other. They will claim TE or Christian-creationist world view at one, while atheist at another. Or the new favorite is agnostic.

It's what ever worldview gives them the advantage in their goal of debating. Whether it be one that allows them to move the goalposts, or change their answer while debating. Or one that allows them to try and insert a lie about God, Jesus, or the Bible.

It's ironic that a true proven fact requires so much deception.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 June 2011 - 12:08 PM

Here is a good video that pins it down to a global flood.



Darwin Under The Microscope from Phil Holden on Vimeo.


Here are some of the things touched on by Paul Garner.

Folded Strata

No Erosion Between Layers

Here is empirical evidence that supports the sorting of fossils and strata during the flood.




Crossbeds Produced In Experiments

Posted Image


Posted Image


And of course, global chalk cliffs can only be produced by massive nutrient outputs, which would be expected if all life on earth perished in a single catastrophic flood. At the current rates, aragonite is being deposited thousands of times faster than chalk.

"Modern precipitated oozes such as those forming in the Bahama Banks are composed almost entirely of minute aragonite crystals with a negligible proportion of coccolith material and relatively little shell debris (in contrast to) ordinary white chalk (which consists of) a course fraction of shell debris and foraminifera embedded in a fine matrix of coccoliths . . . and their disintegration products."

“Upper Cretaceous” Deposits are Part of the Noachian Flood - Answers Research Journal Vol.2 P29-51 June 2009




Enjoy.

#6 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 12 June 2011 - 05:16 PM

i will try that and see, just use google eh? i have removed or helped removed poes from my other forum. one guy had two accounts and he was hard to catch as his ips never matched but he and the other account agreed all the time. and "they" espoused all manner of conspiracies and also geocentrism and were anti-semitic.

#7 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 June 2011 - 11:26 AM

Here is a good video that pins it down to a global flood.



Darwin Under The Microscope from Phil Holden on Vimeo.


Here are some of the things touched on by Paul Garner.

Folded Strata

No Erosion Between Layers

Here is empirical evidence that supports the sorting of fossils and strata during the flood.




Crossbeds Produced In Experiments

Posted Image


Posted Image


And of course, global chalk cliffs can only be produced by massive nutrient outputs, which would be expected if all life on earth perished in a single catastrophic flood. At the current rates, aragonite is being deposited thousands of times faster than chalk.

"Modern precipitated oozes such as those forming in the Bahama Banks are composed almost entirely of minute aragonite crystals with a negligible proportion of coccolith material and relatively little shell debris (in contrast to) ordinary white chalk (which consists of) a course fraction of shell debris and foraminifera embedded in a fine matrix of coccoliths . . . and their disintegration products."

“Upper Cretaceous” Deposits are Part of the Noachian Flood - Answers Research Journal Vol.2 P29-51 June 2009




Enjoy.


Thanks for the information, Jason. As usual, it's good stuff.

#8 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1502 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 July 2011 - 09:15 AM

[quote] name='jason' timestamp='1307819747' post='72756']
ok menssss,lol

another group of yecers needs our help, strictly scientifically speaking what suppports the global flood idea and also problems with the the idea of the colorado river being the source of the grand canyon is for one. i hear geologists have abandon that theory for a local large lake breaking its damn.can anyone find a good science source for that?
[/quote]

jason,

I've noticed that all old earthers (believers and unbelievers) replace "global" flood with "local" flood or floods. A global flood does not comport with their worldviews. But there is one question I've been asking OE's and have yet to get an answer: "What contained the water to raise the level of the water above a mountain top? Since water always seeks its own level, a local flood that rose above a mountain is not possible. What would contain it? And there are sea fossils on all the mountain tops. I know someone who brought back a sea fossil from the Himalayas. And let us not forget that Noah's Ark came to rest on a mountain top (Mt. Ararat.

Has anyone on this thread ever observed an OE answering this question?

TeeJay

#9 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 July 2011 - 11:21 AM

jason,

I've noticed that all old earthers (believers and unbelievers) replace "global" flood with "local" flood or floods. A global flood does not comport with their worldviews. But there is one question I've been asking OE's and have yet to get an answer: "What contained the water to raise the level of the water above a mountain top? Since water always seeks its own level, a local flood that rose above a mountain is not possible. What would contain it? And there are sea fossils on all the mountain tops. I know someone who brought back a sea fossil from the Himalayas. And let us not forget that Noah's Ark came to rest on a mountain top (Mt. Ararat.

Has anyone on this thread ever observed an OE answering this question?

TeeJay


Hey, water seeking it's own level is just too simple! B) Don't you know you have to use scientific language and show mathematical equations?? :get_a_clue: You need graphs and charts, and geographical maps!! :closedeyes: After that you need a list of refereed journal papers discussing how it might have happened! :checklist: But most of all you just need to be an evolutionary agnostic! I mean just because the fossil record has all the signs of marine origin, the evos have a better explanation than the Word of God. :rolleyes:

But in all seriousness. Look up Canadian Rockies, and see what kind of rock they are predominately. Look up Burgess Shale, which is found on the side of the Canadian Rockies. Look up shale and see where it is formed. I wouldn't worry about their explanations of how long it takes. They ignore way too many facts, in order to form their ad hoc trangression and regression stories.

See what kind of fossils are in the Burgess Shale on the side of the Canadian Rockies, and see what kind of rock the Canadian Rockies are! Then you can ask them for their foolish stories, all adorned by PhD's and endorsed by the state as 'serious science.'

#10 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 August 2011 - 05:27 AM

jason,

I've noticed that all old earthers (believers and unbelievers) replace "global" flood with "local" flood or floods. A global flood does not comport with their worldviews. But there is one question I've been asking OE's and have yet to get an answer: "What contained the water to raise the level of the water above a mountain top? Since water always seeks its own level, a local flood that rose above a mountain is not possible. What would contain it? And there are sea fossils on all the mountain tops. I know someone who brought back a sea fossil from the Himalayas. And let us not forget that Noah's Ark came to rest on a mountain top (Mt. Ararat.

Has anyone on this thread ever observed an OE answering this question?

TeeJay

If I understand your post correctly I think that there is a misunderstanding of what most people that you term "old earthers" accept as a concept about flooding. What you appear to be putting forth as their viewpoint is not what I understand to be what exists. It instead seems to be an amalgamation of "young earth" and "old earth" concepts. I guess some might hold to what you explain here, but probably not any that are "unbelievers" as they would reject the possibility of a flood covering mountaintops completely, not having any reason to reconcile biblical passages with geology. Many "believers" would also not hold to this, as they would think the biblical passages are figurative and not literal. They would think as they do because geologic evidence of such a flood event that would cover mountain tops, worldwide of not, does not exist in the rock record as interpreted. They would find having to answer "What contained the water to raise the level of the water above a mountain top?" impossible as well as unnecesary to answer since they would say that it never happened. So I guess you are saying that there is an all or nothing situation with either a worldwide flood that covered the mountain tops, or there was no major flood at all in terms of the depth of inundation of the land since covering mountain tops with water is not possible if it is localized? I guess one could postulate a special condition such as flooding a caldera to the brim, but I don't think there is evidence of this in either bibical passages or in the geologic record. People don't tend to live in calderas.

Floods have happened throughout much of geologic time, before, during, and after the period chronicled in the Bible. This can be seen in the rock record and currently in the news. But flood waters in such events have been restricted to valleys and coastlines. Actually in geology a flooding event means that land areas that were emergent become covered with water and such is routine when sea level rises.

Marine fossils are not found on the tops of all mountains, but where they are found they do not constitute evidence of deposition at high altitudes but instead deposition below sea level and within a range of salinities that they were able to live within. They are indicative of conditions of water depth and general energy level of currents or wave action. Some could only have survived in relatively quiet waters and some would have taken years to grow and develop, not a few weeks or months. Some would have been attached to the substrate.

#11 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 August 2011 - 11:17 AM

If I understand your post correctly I think that there is a misunderstanding of what most people that you term "old earthers" accept as a concept about flooding. What you appear to be putting forth as their viewpoint is not what I understand to be what exists. It instead seems to be an amalgamation of "young earth" and "old earth" concepts. I guess some might hold to what you explain here, but probably not any that are "unbelievers" as they would reject the possibility of a flood covering mountaintops completely, not having any reason to reconcile biblical passages with geology. Many "believers" would also not hold to this, as they would think the biblical passages are figurative and not literal. They would think as they do because geologic evidence of such a flood event that would cover mountain tops, worldwide of not, does not exist in the rock record as interpreted. They would find having to answer "What contained the water to raise the level of the water above a mountain top?" impossible as well as unnecesary to answer since they would say that it never happened. So I guess you are saying that there is an all or nothing situation with either a worldwide flood that covered the mountain tops, or there was no major flood at all in terms of the depth of inundation of the land since covering mountain tops with water is not possible if it is localized? I guess one could postulate a special condition such as flooding a caldera to the brim, but I don't think there is evidence of this in either bibical passages or in the geologic record. People don't tend to live in calderas.

Floods have happened throughout much of geologic time, before, during, and after the period chronicled in the Bible. This can be seen in the rock record and currently in the news. But flood waters in such events have been restricted to valleys and coastlines. Actually in geology a flooding event means that land areas that were emergent become covered with water and such is routine when sea level rises.

Marine fossils are not found on the tops of all mountains, but where they are found they do not constitute evidence of deposition at high altitudes but instead deposition below sea level and within a range of salinities that they were able to live within. They are indicative of conditions of water depth and general energy level of currents or wave action. Some could only have survived in relatively quiet waters and some would have taken years to grow and develop, not a few weeks or months. Some would have been attached to the substrate.


Good grief, geode, still pulling the same mental trickery. It's as if you never pay attention to the details given you.

Posted Image

http://www.answersin...y-sea-creatures

Posted Image

Fossil fish in the Alps.

Posted Image
Giant clams in the Andes.

Did those giant oysters climb their way up the side of that mountain for two miles, geode? But please don't give me that 'uplift' argument (i.e. plate tectonics) nonsense because you know very well that no one has ever observed a mountain created by millions of years of continental plates with an upthrust of higher plates slowly grinding over other plates...except perhaps Noah. :D

As far as the plate tectonics issue is concerned, I believe in the science of it. I don't accept the timing of the evolutionist geologist. The Word of God is sufficient to explain what happened:

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Psalm 104:6-9

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 August 2011 - 10:43 AM

Although, plate tectonics has been a major force during and after the flood, the shape of the continents has barely changed since they split away from Pangea.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=73417

Many mountains do show evidence of rising from plate tectonics, but many do not and those that do have completely upside down strata (i.e. Swiss Alps), which would be impossible if they represented geologic time instead of a flood.


Posted Image

#13 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 August 2011 - 12:37 PM

Although, plate tectonics has been a major force during and after the flood, the shape of the continents has barely changed since they split away from Pangea.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=73417

Many mountains do show evidence of rising from plate tectonics, but many do not and those that do have completely upside down strata (i.e. Swiss Alps), which would be impossible if they represented geologic time instead of a flood.


Posted Image


Right.

Thanks, Jason777.

#14 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 14 August 2011 - 05:32 AM

Good grief, geode, still pulling the same mental trickery. It's as if you never pay attention to the details given you.

Posted Image

http://www.answersin...y-sea-creatures

Posted Image

Fossil fish in the Alps.

Posted Image
Giant clams in the Andes.

Did those giant oysters climb their way up the side of that mountain for two miles, geode? But please don't give me that 'uplift' argument (i.e. plate tectonics) nonsense because you know very well that no one has ever observed a mountain created by millions of years of continental plates with an upthrust of higher plates slowly grinding over other plates...except perhaps Noah. :D

As far as the plate tectonics issue is concerned, I believe in the science of it. I don't accept the timing of the evolutionist geologist. The Word of God is sufficient to explain what happened:

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Psalm 104:6-9

It is because I actually do pay attention to details that I know the explanations of decades of documented and published research is correct, and the conjecture offered on creationist sites is lacking. Plate Tectonics has been firmly established through many types of study. The actual study of strata involved in plate tectonic action shows that it could not happen quickly as you seem to be saying. Fossils are in fact one piece of evidence that shows that the rocks at the tops of mountains such as the Andes formed thousands of feet below where they are now found, when deposition was taking place below mean sea level. The Bible is not a science book and never was intended to be such. The important words to be found there pertain to spirtual matters.

But let us be honest. The passages you quote are rather vague in terms of what they describe, much more like poetry than an accurate chronicle of events or guidance to live by. The testimonies of eye witnesses in court proceedings often show how details are embellished. I'm sure to people caught in flood waters washing away buildings and much on the landscape it would seem as if the waters were rising to hill tops even thought they never came near that level.

I have faith that the word of God is found in the Bible. But there are things I do not have to take on faith, since solid evidence abounds to explain them. Such is the case with stratigraphy and the impact of tectonics which I studied in several formal years of education and then have applied for over 31 years in successful application to unraveling oil and gas plays. Geology is based upon solid principles and not just conjecture forced in support of a conclusion based upon verses such as you copy here.

It is also not proper to accuse me of mental trickery when I simply offered an honest answer to the question posed. To be guilty of trickery as you claim I would have to have an insincere intent and not held what I posted as being correct, which I in fact do.

#15 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 14 August 2011 - 06:18 AM

It is because I actually do pay attention to details that I know the explanations of decades of documented and published research is correct, and the conjecture offered on creationist sites is lacking. Plate Tectonics has been firmly established through many types of study. The actual study of strata involved in plate tectonic action shows that it could not happen quickly as you seem to be saying. Fossils are in fact one piece of evidence that shows that the rocks at the tops of mountains such as the Andes formed thousands of feet below where they are now found, when deposition was taking place below mean sea level. The Bible is not a science book and never was intended to be such. The important words to be found there pertain to spirtual matters.

But let us be honest. The passages you quote are rather vague in terms of what they describe, much more like poetry than an accurate chronicle of events or guidance to live by. The testimonies of eye witnesses in court proceedings often show how details are embellished. I'm sure to people caught in flood waters washing away buildings and much on the landscape it would seem as if the waters were rising to hill tops even thought they never came near that level.

I have faith that the word of God is found in the Bible. But there are things I do not have to take on faith, since solid evidence abounds to explain them. Such is the case with stratigraphy and the impact of tectonics which I studied in several formal years of education and then have applied for over 31 years in successful application to unraveling oil and gas plays. Geology is based upon solid principles and not just conjecture forced in support of a conclusion based upon verses such as you copy here.

It is also not proper to accuse me of mental trickery when I simply offered an honest answer to the question posed. To be guilty of trickery as you claim I would have to have an insincere intent and not held what I posted as being correct, which I in fact do.


What you do is twist the details to suit your prejudices...which are not justified by the facts. Yes, geology is based on solid principles, but your interpretations of geology are not.

But talk about not paying attention to details? (1) I told you in no uncertain terms that I accept plate tectonics as a reality. (2) I told you in no uncertain terms that I do not accept your time frame for the upthrusting of the mountains and/or continents. (3) I told you in no uncertain terms that NO ONE has ever observed mountains and/or continents sliding over other mountains and/or continents to confirm your theory.

YOU deliberately choose to ignore the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ verified all that Moses said about creation and the flood (Mark 10:6, Matt. 24:35-37, among others). His statements were historical, not poetic. You ignore this deliberately. In your mind the Word of the Lord takes a back seat to your Darwinist theorists. I personally have no respect for such a position.

Quote: "that shows that the rocks at the tops of mountains such as the Andes formed thousands of feet below where they are now found."

Of course they did: during the great Noahic deluge and at no other time.

#16 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 14 August 2011 - 06:24 AM

Plate Tectonics has been firmly established through many types of study.

Hi Geode,
Long time no see. I have seen quite a bit of stuff on plate tectonics. I have no problem with an uplift theory. And I have no problem with moving plates moved by geothermal forces. But I see no sufficient force that moves millions of tons of indurated rock against gravity in a slow oregenic event. I would ask for evidence, not general explanation, for a mechanism that could produce this much power. It would seem more amazing to me than a supernatural deluge for this to have happpened naturally.

And why would there be folded limestone strata in mountains? The limestone would have been dessicated after being uplifted above sea level. But I have seen limestone folded with my own eyes in the middle of a continent. It seems to me there should be a limited amount of folded un-metamorhosed limestone in mountains if plate tectonics caused oregeny. It should all be marble or another metamorphose if heat and pressure bent the layers. The fact that there is sedimentary limestone in mountains shows that tectonic movement occured quickly in those areas. I am asking for evidence of this power that moved all this million cubic miles of crust so that it would fold the crust. Please, no general expanation, or circular assumptive journal papers which presuppose tectonic forces caused oregeny over millions of years, whithout providing evidence of any force capable of producing them.

But let us be honest. The passages you quote are rather vague in terms of what they describe, much more like poetry than an accurate chronicle of events or guidance to live by. The testimonies of eye witnesses in court proceedings often show how details are embellished. I'm sure to people caught in flood waters washing away buildings and much on the landscape it would seem as if the waters were rising to hill tops even thought they never came near that level.

I have to agree with you on this one. I am not sure the commonly used verse in Ps. 104 is the flood. The context starts with creation, and waters covered the earth at creation also.

I have faith that the word of God is found in the Bible. But there are things I do not have to take on faith, since solid evidence abounds to explain them. Such is the case with stratigraphy and the impact of tectonics which I studied in several formal years of education and then have applied for over 31 years in successful application to unraveling oil and gas plays. It is also not proper to accuse me of mental trickery when I simply offered an honest answer to the question posed. To be guilty of trickery as you claim I would have to have an insincere intent and not held what I posted as being correct, which I in fact do.

I have no problem with the tectonic theory if that is what geologists see. I just never hear them give explanation for the power that moves so much crust, so as to cause mountains.

I do not feel that geology has provided any sufficient explanation as to how this much continuous force was needed to build mountains. Nor how subduction and drift from the push of magma, or the pull of subduction moves so much crust--AND against friction from opposing plates!

A very simple experiment could be used to illustrate what I am saying. Take an area carpet lay it on a concrete or wood floor. Put one side of it against the wall. Now push the near side toward the wall and see which side will fold first. I predict the side nearer to you will fold first because the pressure will be greater than the weight of the carpet per square inch, causing the side nearest you to give first. Conversely, what we see are mountains that are thousands of miles away from subduction and "spreading" zones.

I am not accusing of any trickery. But if you have faith in God, why would you not consider the fact that God could have caused oregeny, and we see the evidence after the fact. It's just that I do not see what is pushing the crustal plates with enough continual force to cause mountain building.

#17 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 14 August 2011 - 07:16 AM

The Bible is not a science book and never was intended to be such. The important words to be found there pertain to spirtual matters.

And geology can only explain what it sees in the present. It also measures by present processes. You say you have faith, then do you believe that Jesus and Peter spoke by revelatory knowledge, or do you believe 2 Timothy 3:16 is inspired by God? SO when Jesus was speaking about Noah, and the last days being like the flood, and that people will "eating, drinking, marrying...until the flood came, and took them all away..." he should have first looked into the future and known that modern geology would discount what he said. Or will you say his followers "added" that? Then how can we rely on anything that is written. Either you believe the Bible is of divine origin, or it is of man. If it is partially man and partially God, then are we to live down here arguing over which part we choose to believe?

Geology is based upon solid principles and not just conjecture forced in support of a conclusion based upon verses such as you copy here.

Geologists tend to be elitist, because of their knowledge. Because I can speak French, does that qualify me to speak of the local customs of a Gaulite in 600 BC? In the same way, because one understands formations, groups, mineral orientation, etc. does that qualify him to arbitrarily interpret when something happened? Especially when some of the explanations do not hold water. As well, the measuring devices and systems that create geological time markers are subject to question.

By your "conjecture" comment, you are implying that creationism is somewhat based on the verses you are mentioning. I could agree with you if that were the entirety of the case against it, but that's not the case.

Creationism is based on what is believed to be an historical model given by the revelation of the Creator. Certain predictions can be inferred from this model to which data can and does confirm. Each data which fits the prediction should not be ignored because of another seeming problem in another area. Second, the geological timescale is a model to which all data is fit into. You don't change your model every time you see anomolous data, so you further research it, in hopes of reconciling it, or form a hypothesis to explain it (which may not be correct). So you commit to a model.

Finally, to say there is no conjecture in the tectonics hypothesis would be false. There are different schools of thinking (past and present) as to how the plates move. If you want to bring up "that's how science works," I can say "if the past thinking was 'falsified', then the present thinking is subject to the same. To say "well, the current theory best explains the data," does not make it a fact.

I would rather place my hopes on the Word of God, and that God is a God of order, not confusion. For instance, why should I rule out a flood when an entirely large narrative of the Bible and subsequent passages throughout scripture refer to it? This undermines the importance the Spirit of truth, and revelation (2 Timothy 3:16) To say the flood is figurative is to say that the entirety of the scriptural doctrine, including Jesus, and the apostle Peter (both of whom spoke of the deluge), were not speaking by the Spirit, and were speaking in ignorance of truth.

But I know rather the history of the enlightenment, and the takeover of higher education in the 19th century. How that the atheistic forefathers of geology and evolution created an alternate model, and that many theists of the 1800s,who were liberal in their theology, fell for this model hook, line and sinker.

#18 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 August 2011 - 07:30 AM

And geology can only explain what it sees in the present. It also measures by present processes. You say you have faith, then do you believe that Jesus and Peter spoke by revelatory knowledge, or do you believe 2 Timothy 3:16 is inspired by God? SO when Jesus was speaking about Noah, and the last days being like the flood, and that people will "eating, drinking, marrying...until the flood came, and took them all away..." he should have first looked into the future and known that modern geology would discount what he said. Or will you say his followers "added" that? Then how can we rely on anything that is written. Either you believe the Bible is of divine origin, or it is of man. If it is partially man and partially God, then are we to live down here arguing over which part we choose to believe?

Geologists tend to be elitist, because of their knowledge. Because I can speak French, does that qualify me to speak of the local customs of a Gaulite in 600 BC? In the same way, because one understands formations, groups, mineral orientation, etc. does that qualify him to arbitrarily interpret when something happened? Especially when some of the explanations do not hold water. As well, the measuring devices and systems that create geological time markers are subject to question.

By your "conjecture" comment, you are implying that creationism is somewhat based on the verses you are mentioning. I could agree with you if that were the entirety of the case against it, but that's not the case.

Creationism is based on what is believed to be an historical model given by the revelation of the Creator. Certain predictions can be inferred from this model to which data can and does confirm. Each data which fits the prediction should not be ignored because of another seeming problem in another area. Second, the geological timescale is a model to which all data is fit into. You don't change your model every time you see anomolous data, so you further research it, in hopes of reconciling it, or form a hypothesis to explain it (which may not be correct). So you commit to a model.

Finally, to say there is no conjecture in the tectonics hypothesis would be false. There are different schools of thinking (past and present) as to how the plates move. If you want to bring up "that's how science works," I can say "if the past thinking was 'falsified', then the present thinking is subject to the same. To say "well, the current theory best explains the data," does not make it a fact.

I would rather place my hopes on the Word of God, and that God is a God of order, not confusion. For instance, why should I rule out a flood when an entirely large narrative of the Bible and subsequent passages throughout scripture refer to it? This undermines the importance the Spirit of truth, and revelation (2 Timothy 3:16) To say the flood is figurative is to say that the entirety of the scriptural doctrine, including Jesus, and the apostle Peter (both of whom spoke of the deluge), were not speaking by the Spirit, and were speaking in ignorance of truth.

But I know rather the history of the enlightenment, and the takeover of higher education in the 19th century. How that the atheistic forefathers of geology and evolution created an alternate model, and that many theists of the 1800s,who were liberal in their theology, fell for this model hook, line and sinker.


We are wasting our breath (er, uh, fingers) as it regards geode. I've been debating him on and off for years and he is determined to stay in the darkness. And not just the matter of living fossils that reveal little or no evolutionary change, the folding of huge rock formations without breaks, marine fossils in the highest mountains, let alone the many polystrate fossils that have been found which would be convincing enough to honest researchers...but not even the very words of Jesus Christ himself that confirm Moses descriptions as history and not poetic or symbolic will convince that man that his position on the creation/evolution is in error. Jesus was certainly not speaking in poetic fashion when he told his disciples about creation, the flood of Noah, etc. and compared it to the end of the world and His literal/visible return. His mention of Adam, Eve, the murder of Abel by Cain, the flood of Noah, Lots wife, were all spoken of in historical terms. But geode doesn't care. So from now on I am only going to address his issues if I think some young Christian might be led astray by his heresies. Otherwise I will ignore him.

#19 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 September 2011 - 05:15 AM

It is because I actually do pay attention to details that I know the explanations of decades of documented and published research is correct, and the conjecture offered on creationist sites is lacking. Plate Tectonics has been firmly established through many types of study. The actual study of strata involved in plate tectonic action shows that it could not happen quickly as you seem to be saying. Fossils are in fact one piece of evidence that shows that the rocks at the tops of mountains such as the Andes formed thousands of feet below where they are now found, when deposition was taking place below mean sea level. The Bible is not a science book and never was intended to be such. The important words to be found there pertain to spirtual matters.
...

But you must admit that this isn't concise evidence for this having formed under normal circumstance under sea level and then slowly moving up to where the Andes are today? What is your other evidence for this? Also note that finding marine fossils on top isn't limited to the Andes. It is a common phenomena.

As I understand it the flood hypothesis does include shifts of geologic formation. The presence of marine formations on the continents does for sure indicate a global flood.

Btw. Just because my picture album isn't a "scientific book" (as you seem to define it in terms of 20th century academia) doesn't mean that what is seen on the photos isn't for real.

#20 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 20 October 2011 - 06:26 PM

The Bible is not a science book and never was intended to be such.


Thank God for that. If it was it would be outdated by now just like science textbooks from 50 years ago. The Bible is thousands of years old and is not contradicted by any scientific fact or principal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users