A question for YECs

[Darth Executor]

If there was a global flood on this planet, where did all the water go?

[Meh_Gerbil]

If there was a global flood on this planet, where did all the water go?

If you were to level out all the land on the planet (fill in all the trenches in the ocean, etc) I'm told there would be enough water to cover all the land by a wide margin. In short, there is plenty of water.

[rogero]

If you were to level out all the land on the planet (fill in all the trenches in the ocean, etc) I'm told there would be enough water to cover all the land by a wide margin. In short, there is plenty of water.

I really don't understand what you're saying. Even if you "leveled out" all the land on the planet (which is a geologically ridiculous concept), you still would need water to cover all the land. Where would it come from?

But--- Then, you'd have to answer where the topography came from that we see on today's Earth? There are mountains as high as 29,000 feet and ocean trenches as deep as 36,000 feet below sea level. How did all this rearrangement occur after a flood in the past 4500 years?

R

[Darth Executor]

I really don't understand what you're saying. Even if you "leveled out" all the land on the planet (which is a geologically ridiculous concept), you still would need water to cover all the land. Where would it come from?

But--- Then, you'd have to answer where the topography came from that we see on today's Earth? There are mountains as high as 29,000 feet and ocean trenches as deep as 36,000 feet below sea level. How did all this rearrangement occur after a flood in the past 4500 years?

R


If you leveled all the land, water would cover all of it (it only makes sense that if you have a perfect sphere, water is going to cover all of it. But such a concept is ridiculous. They clearly had mountains, and Noah lands on one that is still around. So I wanted to know where YECs think all the water came from. I know they have a couple of theories about it.

[brett]

If there was a global flood on this planet, where did all the water go?

When I hear questions like this, I then ask “how big is your God?” The flood was not a natural event so we don’t actually know the mechanisms He may have used. He certainly could have created water (not a big problem for the One who created the entire universe) but regardless, any time you start investigating a miracle of God, science becomes quite useless. This seems to rather upset many scientists I’ve noticed, but it should be quite evident to them. Science can’t investigate supernatural acts. The only thing we can really trust in this area is the Bible.

Where did all the water go? I doubt that God created more water. From various passage it seems He may have simply raised the mountains up higher than they were prior. 70% of the earth is covered in water right now. Just a few adjustments by the Almighty and we're covered again! But of course that won't happen.

Here's a pretty good article on the subject if you’re interested.
Noah's Flood—what about all that water? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp)


If you leveled all the land, water would cover all of it (it only makes sense that if you have a perfect sphere, water is going to cover all of it. But such a concept is ridiculous. They clearly had mountains, and Noah lands on one that is still around.

If the world were a perfect sphere I understand the water would be almost 2 miles deep around the entire planet. That’s a lot of water! A few mountains would not make much of a difference. There certainly were mountains pre flood but scripture doesn’t say how many and how high. Interestingly the Bible says that in some places during the flood the water was as shallow as 20 feet (Gen. 7:20), so obviously the earth was not a perfect sphere at that time.

But this is beside the point. We’re talking about a miracle and God didn’t share with us exactly how He did it. Therefore, there's no way to test it in a lab, or investigate it scientifically. You either believe it or you don’t.

Gen. 7:17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished — birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

[grmorton]

When I hear questions like this, I then ask “how big is your God?” The flood was not a natural event so we don’t actually know the mechanisms He may have used. He certainly could have created water (not a big problem for the One who created the entire universe) but regardless, any time you start investigating a miracle of God, science becomes quite useless. This seems to rather upset many scientists I’ve noticed, but it should be quite evident to them. Science can’t investigate supernatural acts. The only thing we can really trust in this area is the Bible.

It certainly doesn't upset me if you want to believe it was all miraculous. What upsets me is YECs who claim it is all supported by science and observational data, when clearly it isn't supported in that manner. It upsets me when they make up data and twist observations to bolster their claim that science has 'proven' the flood when it clearly hasn't.

Believing it is all miraculous is the only consistent position which doesn't really conflict with science. But then, it might divorce Christianity from reality, but that is another problem.

[shunyadragon]

When I hear questions like this, I then ask “how big is your God?” The flood was not a natural event so we don’t actually know the mechanisms He may have used. He certainly could have created water (not a big problem for the One who created the entire universe) but regardless, any time you start investigating a miracle of God, science becomes quite useless. This seems to rather upset many scientists I’ve noticed, but it should be quite evident to them. Science can’t investigate supernatural acts. The only thing we can really trust in this area is the Bible.

Where did all the water go? I doubt that God created more water. From various passage it seems He may have simply raised the mountains up higher than they were prior. 70% of the earth is covered in water right now. Just a few adjustments by the Almighty and we're covered again! But of course that won't happen.

Here's a pretty good article on the subject if you’re interested.
Noah's Flood—what about all that water? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp)



If the world were a perfect sphere I understand the water would be almost 2 miles deep around the entire planet. That’s a lot of water! A few mountains would not make much of a difference. There certainly were mountains pre flood but scripture doesn’t say how many and how high. Interestingly the Bible says that in some places during the flood the water was as shallow as 20 feet (Gen. 7:20), so obviously the earth was not a perfect sphere at that time.

But this is beside the point. We’re talking about a miracle and God didn’t share with us exactly how He did it. Therefore, there's no way to test it in a lab, or investigate it scientifically. You either believe it or you don’t.

Gen. 7:17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished — birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

The idea that the earth was flat(er) at some time in the past 10,000, million years or even a billion years is a myth that does not work. The mountains and seas were pretty much as they were 10,000 years ago. The energy required to make the changes envisioned by fundimentalists in a short period of time is physically impossible.

The writers of the OT were better geologists than today's apologist fundimentalists. They recognized than the mountains were very old, and the hills were truly ancient Olam! Olam!

By the way yo canont have great whales if you have shallow seas. Genesis 1:21. Much of the rest of the sea life could not survive if al the seas were shallow.

[Darth Executor]

Actually, everything in the bible points towards the fact that God DID NOT create any more water. The water had to come from somewhere.

[brett]

The idea that the earth was flat(er) at some time in the past 10,000, million years or even a billion years is a myth that does not work. The mountains and seas were pretty much as they were 10,000 years ago. The energy required to make the changes envisioned by fundimentalists in a short period of time is physically impossible.

Even for God? Do the mountains not tremble before Him? Surely God has the energy to do the job. Again I ask, how big is your God? How could adjusting the height of the mountains and depth of the valleys be to hard for Him?


The writers of the OT were better geologists than today's apologist fundimentalists. They recognized than the mountains were very old, and the hills were truly ancient Olam! Olam!

6,000 years sounds pretty darn old to me.


By the way yo canont have great whales if you have shallow seas. Genesis 1:21. Much of the rest of the sea life could not survive if al the seas were shallow.

Who said it was shallow? Even during the flood it was only 20 feet deep in some areas. So if the average depth was 2 miles it must have been much deeper in other areas. And even deeper before the flood.

[shunyadragon]

Even for God? Do the mountains not tremble before Him? Surely God has the energy to do the job. Again I ask, how big is your God? How could adjusting the height of the mountains and depth of the valleys be to hard for Him?

Mountains may tremble, but what ever it does not work out, unless you are claiming the fideist approach. Are you?



6,000 years sounds pretty darn old to me.

You have got to come up with one better than that. It was not 6,000 years old when this was written. Olam! Olam! is not just pretty darn old. If you want to go over the quotes I can. This line does not work.



Who said it was shallow? Even during the flood it was only 20 feet deep in some areas. So if the average depth was 2 miles it must have been much deeper in other areas. And even deeper before the flood.

With ancient mountain and deep seas, were back to the same square one. Where did the water come from? Did God use a soda straw?

[grmorton]

Even for God? Do the mountains not tremble before Him? Surely God has the energy to do the job. Again I ask, how big is your God? How could adjusting the height of the mountains and depth of the valleys be to hard for Him?



6,000 years sounds pretty darn old to me.


Brett, maybe you should explain why your view seems to violate the Hebrew. See http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=851315&postcount=1


Maybe you aren't being as faithful to Scripture as you think.
Olam Olam.

[Shema]

Just a few adjustments by the Almighty and we're covered again! But of course that won't happen.

Maybe God shook the earth like a snow globe.

[brett]

shuny you claimed: The mountains and seas were pretty much as they were 10,000 years ago. The energy required to make the changes envisioned by fundimentalists in a short period of time is physically impossible.

I pointed to the energy source of God to which you replied:Mountains may tremble, but what ever it does not work out, unless you are claiming the fideist approach. Are you?

You're basically saying God cannot move mountains. Are you sure you want to stick with that?


You have got to come up with one better than that. It was not 6,000 years old when this was written.

You really think I didn't know that? I did not say it was 6,000 years from the time of a particular writer. I said 6,000 years is very old. Do you agree? But since you want to get into quotes from biblical authors how's this? Even a thousand years is pretty darn old. The quotes you'll come up with are going to be about 3,000 years from creation. That's definitely old!


Olam! Olam! is not just pretty darn old. If you want to go over the quotes I can. This line does not work.

Sure it does. Go over any quotes you like. BTW, the most coherent view of God and time I've heard is the idea that God created the heavens earth and time all at once. Your view of God & time is probably going to become relevant here. But maybe not. Let’s see where you’re going.

[Darth Executor]

I'm not even going to debate God's power, as He is more than capable of drowning the entire universe in water. However, Scripture made it crystal clear that the water was released from two places: the heavens and the underground. What I want to know is where that water went. As far as I can tell, there are 4 options:

1. The water is stored somewhere(a huge underground ocean seems the most likely)
2. Scripture does not refer to a worldwide flood.
3. Scripture is wrong.
4. The flood did not occur on this planet.

1 is the only reasonable option if you are YEC, 2 is for most other types of Christians, 3 is for atheists, and 4 is for the mentally unbalanced(like me). If 1 is correct, are there any scans done by YEC scientists that confirm the existance of such a mass of water?

[brett]

I'm not even going to debate God's power, as He is more than capable of drowning the entire universe in water. However, Scripture made it crystal clear that the water was released from two places: the heavens and the underground. What I want to know is where that water went. As far as I can tell, there are 4 options:

1. The water is stored somewhere(a huge underground ocean seems the most likely)
2. Scripture does not refer to a worldwide flood.
3. Scripture is wrong.
4. The flood did not occur on this planet.

1 is the only reasonable option if you are YEC, 2 is for most other types of Christians, 3 is for atheists, and 4 is for the mentally unbalanced(like me). If 1 is correct, are there any scans done by YEC scientists that confirm the existance of such a mass of water?

Boy talk about stacking the deck. You've not offered one problem with the current model all YECs believe, yet exclude if from your list. If you believe God is powerful enough to flood the universe why can't He adjust some mountains and valleys? It's amazing how you want to make a simple thing so complicated.

[Darth Executor]

Boy talk about stacking the deck. You've not offered one problem with the current model all YECs believe, yet exclude if from your list. If you believe God is powerful enough to flood the universe why can't He adjust some mountains and valleys? It's amazing how you want to make a simple thing so complicated.

There is no mention of any adjustment to the planet's geography in scripture.

[EvoUK]

Aside from there's no evidence for a flood as described in the bible- where the water came from and where it went is almost a minor problem, you'd have to show it occured first- there's also the fact that civilisations survived through the era when this flood supposedly took place. Funny how they don't mention being drowned to the last member.

Any way you look at it, a literal flood is self-evidently absurd.

[brett]

There is no mention of any adjustment to the planet's geography in scripture.

Let me just agree with you for the sake of argument. The fact is God created a miraculous global flood and didn't tell us all the details of that miracle. The same is true with the six day creation. He could have used any number of methods mechanisms. The question is, if we don't know the details are we going to reject or spiritualize what the text explicitly says? We do know that God could easily have adjusted the mountains and valleys, and that to me (and most YECs) makes the most sense.

BTW, I don't know how exactly the virgin birth happened. Does that mean it didn't happen? Many self-described christians say it didn't, that it was just figurative language to convey spiritual truth. They’re doing the same thing you are.

[brett]

Aside from there's no evidence for a flood as described in the bible- where the water came from and where it went is almost a minor problem,

And this is probably why you reject miracles like the resurrection. After all there is no scientific evidence, therefore it must not have happened. But you forget that science can't investigate miracles anyway. Even if a scientist observed one, philosophically he must look for natural explanations and the pure naturalist, which I'm assuming you are, wouldn't even believe if a person rose from the dead.


you'd have to show it occured first- there's also the fact that civilisations survived through the era when this flood supposedly took place. Funny how they don't mention being drowned to the last member.

But many do have legends about a global flood. Perhaps their chronology is off and the Bible's is correct.

[grmorton]

There is no mention of any adjustment to the planet's geography in scripture.

Sure, but it is ok for YECs to add whatever they need to the Bible to make their theories work. Some, like Baumgardner, have god absorb heat for him. Humphreys has God changing fundamental constants to change the radioactive decay rate. Henry Morris has God change the speed of light. And Brett tells God to flatten the topography. Yecs are really powerful people and God fears not to do what they say. So he does it--whatever it is.

Thus I have concluded that God must be so busy doing all those miracles that YECs demand him to do that he didn't have time to write it all down. But it sure looks like the YECs get to constantly tell God what to do.

[Darth Executor]

Let me just agree with you for the sake of argument. The fact is God created a miraculous global flood and didn't tell us all the details of that miracle. The same is true with the six day creation. He could have used any number of methods mechanisms. The question is, if we don't know the details are we going to reject or spiritualize what the text explicitly says? We do know that God could easily have adjusted the mountains and valleys, and that to me (and most YECs) makes the most sense.

BTW, I don't know how exactly the virgin birth happened. Does that mean it didn't happen? Many self-described christians say it didn't, that it was just figurative language to convey spiritual truth. They’re doing the same thing you are.


17: The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.
18: The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
19: And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;
20: the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
21: And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man

Notice how it says the water went over the mountains and COVERED them? For a flood to occur, the mountains need to be flooded first. There was no change in the Earth's geography, otherwise the Bible lies.

[Darth Executor]

Aside from there's no evidence for a flood as described in the bible- where the water came from and where it went is almost a minor problem, you'd have to show it occured first- there's also the fact that civilisations survived through the era when this flood supposedly took place. Funny how they don't mention being drowned to the last member.

Any way you look at it, a literal flood is self-evidently absurd.


1. A YEC's date of when the flood occured and a OEC's date would be different. I believe a lot of OECs believe it occured around 12000 BC. That's twice the age of the earth YECs propose.

2. With an unknwon date for its occurance, if one should discover some sort of underground reservoir of water, I think it would be reasnoable to assume that a flood DID occur. Maybe not enough to convince a cement skull skeptic, but enough for me.

[brett]

A couple of observations of how this thread is going. It’s seems we’re talking past one another. You were asking a YEC to speculate where the water went. I’m assuming that’s what you were doing because you and I both know the text reveals very few details about the miracle itself. Then when I offer a speculation someone immediately says “There you see all he can do is speculate!” :huh:

But my counter question to you (and my focus) is , why do you need to know the details of a miracle before you can believe it?


19: And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;
20: the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
21: And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man

Notice how it says the water went over the mountains and COVERED them? For a flood to occur, the mountains need to be flooded first. There was no change in the Earth's geography, otherwise the Bible lies.

So again I guess you’re asking me to speculate which I’m happy to do. So here’s my speculation. The pre flood mountains were not as tall as the post flood mountains. The pre flood ocean valleys were not as deep as the post flood ocean valleys. Why weren't the pre flood mountains also underwater? Perhaps there was a pre flood canopy of dense water vapor in the atmosphere and vast amounts of water underground (under the land) which God supernaturally caused to burst upward like great volcanos.

Also I think you’re getting a bit over zealous with your exegesis of Gen. 7.

Gen. 7:17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

The Ark rose in relation to the land. Whether the land was dropping or stationary makes no difference. All movement is relative.

18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters.

Here’s a quick definition of the Hebrew word gaw-bar: to prevail, have strength, be strong, be powerful, be mighty, be great.

If Hawaii sank into the pacific the waters would prevail over it. Prevailing waters don’t require stationary land masses. The waters prevailed over the Titanic.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

All this says is in relation to the mountains the waters (and Ark) prevailed upward.

When the earth stopped rotating in Joshua’s time the author said the Sun stopped. Did the Sun actually stop? Well in relation to the earth which was the authors point of reference, yes! Even today modern astrophysicists use the terms sunset and sunrise. Are they using them accurately? Yes! From our point of reference the sun rises and sets. The mere suggestion that God adjusted the mountains and valleys doesn’t not contradict scripture—at least none you’ve cited as of yet. If there are more convincing passages I’m always open. Until then, adjusted mountains and valleys is a legitimate speculation. And there may even be better speculations I’m not aware of. It's not the point.

The point is, why must all details be know to you before you can believe something? I don’t know the details of how God accomplished the Resurrection. I’m assuming you don’t either. I don’t know how Jesus pulled off feeding five thousand with a few fish. I can only speculate. So why not reject these miracles also?

[shunyadragon]

A couple of observations of how this thread is going. It’s seems we’re talking past one another. You were asking a YEC to speculate where the water went. I’m assuming that’s what you were doing because you and I both know the text reveals very few details about the miracle itself. Then when I offer a speculation someone immediately says “There you see all he can do is speculate!” :huh:

But my counter question to you (and my focus) is , why do you need to know the details of a miracle before you can believe it?



So again I guess you’re asking me to speculate which I’m happy to do. So here’s my speculation. The pre flood mountains were not as tall as the post flood mountains. The pre flood ocean valleys were not as deep as the post flood ocean valleys. Why weren't the pre flood mountains also underwater? Perhaps there was a pre flood canopy of dense water vapor in the atmosphere and vast amounts of water underground (under the land) which God supernaturally caused to burst upward like great volcanos.

Also I think you’re getting a bit over zealous with your exegesis of Gen. 7.

Gen. 7:17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

The Ark rose in relation to the land. Whether the land was dropping or stationary makes no difference. All movement is relative.

18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters.

Here’s a quick definition of the Hebrew word gaw-bar: to prevail, have strength, be strong, be powerful, be mighty, be great.

If Hawaii sank into the pacific the waters would prevail over it. Prevailing waters don’t require stationary land masses. The waters prevailed over the Titanic.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

All this says is in relation to the mountains the waters (and Ark) prevailed upward.

When the earth stopped rotating in Joshua’s time the author said the Sun stopped. Did the Sun actually stop? Well in relation to the earth which was the authors point of reference, yes! Even today modern astrophysicists use the terms sunset and sunrise. Are they using them accurately? Yes! From our point of reference the sun rises and sets. The mere suggestion that God adjusted the mountains and valleys doesn’t not contradict scripture—at least none you’ve cited as of yet. If there are more convincing passages I’m always open. Until then, adjusted mountains and valleys is a legitimate speculation. And there may even be better speculations I’m not aware of. It's not the point.

The point is, why must all details be know to you before you can believe something? I don’t know the details of how God accomplished the Resurrection. I’m assuming you don’t either. I don’t know how Jesus pulled off feeding five thousand with a few fish. I can only speculate. So why not reject these miracles also?

In a real world the earth cannot stop anymore than the sun stop in the sky. Calling upon miracles and the supernatural to explain the history of life and the earth as you do is basically a fideist approach. This would require God to create one set of evidence that scientists have available to evaluate and understand the history of the universe, and then the reality of the history according to the Bible is one of miracles and not the evidence. The fideist approach is a real worldview, but not realistic. in taking this stance with the selective use of evidence to support this does not work, because all the evidence is connected and represents an entirely different worldview.

Comparing the Titanic and Hawaii is not very realistic. It would be unrealistic to assume that this volcano some how it prevailed (crouched down?) so it could be covered by the flood and sprung back up to its present state

The volcano that makes up the island of Hawaii is one of the largest cone volcanoes in existence. It is one of a series of volcanoes that stretch out to the west and northwest that clearly demonstrate the Pacific Ocean Plate moving over a Hot Spot in the Ocean floor. This movement can actually be measus in the recent evidence of volcanic activity, and the volcanic activity is shifting to the east side of the volcanoe and in the ocean as the ocean crust moves west.

[brett]

In a real world the earth cannot stop anymore than the sun stop in the sky. Calling upon miracles and the supernatural to explain the history of life and the earth as you do is basically a fideist approach.

And in the real world men don't rise from the dead. If believing in a God who can effect miracles makes me a fideist sobeit!


This would require God to create one set of evidence that scientists have available to evaluate and understand the history of the universe, and then the reality of the history according to the Bible is one of miracles and not the evidence.

So you believe God creates evidence for scientists to sort of just read like a book? If it's that easy why do they change their minds about it so much.


Comparing the Titanic and Hawaii is not very realistic. It would be unrealistic to assume that this volcano some how it prevailed (crouched down?) so it could be covered by the flood and sprung back up to its present state

Really? So islands have never dropped below sea level? Ever?

Besides you missed the whole point. I was speaking hypothetically to explain the meaning of the hebrew word for "prevail."


The volcano that makes up the island of Hawaii is one of the largest cone volcanoes in existence. It is one of a series of volcanoes that stretch out to the west and northwest that clearly demonstrate the Pacific Ocean Plate moving over a Hot Spot in the Ocean floor. This movement can actually be measus in the recent evidence of volcanic activity, and the volcanic activity is shifting to the east side of the volcanoe and in the ocean as the ocean crust moves west.

Very interesting. I'll remember that when I'm in Maui next year. BTW, what does this have to do with the meaning of prevail? :huh:

[shunyadragon]

And in the real world men don't rise from the dead. If believing in a God who can effect miracles makes me a fideist sobeit!

Believing in a God that can effect miracles is not necessarilly equivallent to the fideist belief. The fideist belief relates more to science, and the history of the earth, universe and life. The fideist approach assumes the Bible is literally accurate irregardless of the scientific evidence.

I believe in God and what I call the appearence of miracles. What humans view as miraculous or supernatural is simply the something beyond the limits of our understanding, and may or may not be true. I consider Christ's resurrection as a reality that cannot be defined from the human point of view. I believe it was a spiritual resurrection, but whether it is spiritual or physical is beyond our present understanding.

I do not believe God creates false evidence for scientists to find, as far as the history of the earth, universe and life.

So you believe God creates evidence for scientists to sort of just read like a book? If it's that easy why do they change their minds about it so much.

No, the evidence is simply there in the earth and the universe. Scientists do not change there minds so much. The knowledge of science evolves as new knowledge is discovered. Actually the basic model of of evolution presented by Darwin has not changed at all, Some recent discoveries have even reaffirmed some Darwin's originally proposals concerning the belief that ecology and not necessarilly isolation is a greater factor in speciation.



Really? So islands have never dropped below sea level? Ever?

Besides you missed the whole point. I was speaking hypothetically to explain the meaning of the hebrew word for "prevail."



Very interesting. I'll remember that when I'm in Maui next year. BTW, what does this have to do with the meaning of prevail? :huh:[/QUOTE]

[Perry]

If there was a global flood on this planet, where did all the water go?

If I may speak from within my protective shroud of ignorance...the quantity of fossils and fossil fuels would indicate that there were many more plants and animals before the flood, right? There was a lot more land available on which they could exist before. When the fountains of the deep broke up, and the canopy of water collapsed, the waters covered the whole earth. Apparently the earth's crust is thicker in some areas, quite thin in others. Interestingly, it is the ocean floors with the thin crust. Also interesing is the fact that Mt ranges tend to have been formed (I think catastrophically)parrallel to the coasts. Perhaps the thinner parts collapsed, and the water ran off to the low spots. That's where that water went. The rest of the water is still going. If a comet came through our solar system breaking apart, much ice (300 below 0 F Wooly Mammoth freezing ice) could have been magnetically sucked onto the poles due to the Mysner effect, setting Earth (thanks rogero) off a little on "her" axis. Much of this water has drained off into the oceans, and they're still melting, and the oceans are still growing. Perhaps the continental shelves were the beach immediately following the flood. If this is true, if the water levels were dropped just a few hundred feet, the whole sphere would be navigable by foot. Apparently the oceans have enough mud on their floors to have been receiving this type of drainage for about 6-10,000 years. A potentially embarrasing problem if yer not a YEC is, where's the missing mud? At this point you have to go with a 250 billion year Pangea type theory, drifting continents slowly puking up marine fossils to the highest points. This sounds rediculous until someone like Glenn puts it into terms the common man couldn't possibly understand, but you, Darth Executor, are smarter than me, and may be able to follow his reasoning perfectly.

Other questions you may want to ask are:
1) How much mass per minute is the Sun losing? (Assuming you don't hold the view that it's nuke fissioning itself)
2) If our moon is billions of years old, at what rate does dust acummulate on it and how many years' woth of dust is up there?
3)Is the moon drifting further away from Earth? If so, at what rate? If at a rate, then how close would it have been say, 1 million years ago?
4) How cold does it have to be to freeze a wooly mammoth so quickly that the food in it's belly and mouth is undigested and not rotted? (If not cold enough an insulating layer about a foot thick would freeze around it and the insides would rot.

There are more questions, of course.

[brett]

Believing in a God that can effect miracles is not necessarilly equivallent to the fideist belief. The fideist belief relates more to science, and the history of the earth, universe and life. The fideist approach assumes the Bible is literally accurate irregardless of the scientific evidence.

Well then belief in miracles (additions to natural processes) must be fideism. For science cannot investigate them nor ever find evidence for them. A miracle will always throw off the scientific approach.


I believe in God and what I call the appearence of miracles. What humans view as miraculous or supernatural is simply the something beyond the limits of our understanding, and may or may not be true. I consider Christ's resurrection as a reality that cannot be defined from the human point of view. I believe it was a spiritual resurrection, but whether it is spiritual or physical is beyond our present understanding.

This is a very consistent approach. But it also confirms my fear that the spiritualization of the first Adam will logically lead to the spiritualization of the second Adam.


I do not believe God creates false evidence for scientists to find, as far as the history of the earth, universe and life.

Then you must reject all miracles because miracles will always confuse science. I've heard some say God doesn't use miracles because those in and of themselves will cause confusion. Is this what you believe?


No, the evidence is simply there in the earth and the universe. Scientists do not change there minds so much. The knowledge of science evolves as new knowledge is discovered. Actually the basic model of of evolution presented by Darwin has not changed at all, Some recent discoveries have even reaffirmed some Darwin's originally proposals concerning the belief that ecology and not necessarilly isolation is a greater factor in speciation.

But the evidence is viewed through a naturalistic tunnel. It's not the evidence that's the problem, it's the interpretation through a naturalistic framework. This works fine in most areas, but can't help us when it comes to investigating a supernatural God and His miracles.

[rogero]

If I may speak from within my protective shroud of ignorance...the quantity of fossils and fossil fuels would indicate that there were many more plants and animals before the flood, right? There was a lot more land available on which they could exist before. When the fountains of the deep broke up, and the canopy of water collapsed, the waters covered the whole earth. Apparently the earth's crust is thicker in some areas, quite thin in others. Interestingly, it is the ocean floors with the thin crust. Also interesing is the fact that Mt ranges tend to have been formed (I think catastrophically)parrallel to the coasts. Perhaps the thinner parts collapsed, and the water ran off to the low spots. That's where that water went. The rest of the water is still going. If a comet came through our solar system breaking apart, much ice (300 below 0 F Wooly Mammoth freezing ice) could have been magnetically sucked onto the poles due to the Mysner effect, setting Earth (thanks rogero) off a little on "her" axis. Much of this water has drained off into the oceans, and they're still melting, and the oceans are still growing. Perhaps the continental shelves were the beach immediately following the flood. If this is true, if the water levels were dropped just a few hundred feet, the whole sphere would be navigable by foot. Apparently the oceans have enough mud on their floors to have been receiving this type of drainage for about 6-10,000 years. A potentially embarrasing problem if yer not a YEC is, where's the missing mud? At this point you have to go with a 250 billion year Pangea type theory, drifting continents slowly puking up marine fossils to the highest points. This sounds rediculous until someone like Glenn puts it into terms the common man couldn't possibly understand, but you, Darth Executor, are smarter than me, and may be able to follow his reasoning perfectly.

Other questions you may want to ask are:
1) How much mass per minute is the Sun losing? (Assuming you don't hold the view that it's nuke fissioning itself)
2) If our moon is billions of years old, at what rate does dust acummulate on it and how many years' woth of dust is up there?
3)Is the moon drifting further away from Earth? If so, at what rate? If at a rate, then how close would it have been say, 1 million years ago?
4) How cold does it have to be to freeze a wooly mammoth so quickly that the food in it's belly and mouth is undigested and not rotted? (If not cold enough an insulating layer about a foot thick would freeze around it and the insides would rot.

There are more questions, of course.

Is that ignorance I smell???

Did you come up with all this crap on your own? AiG is in need of another good YEC "scientist" with creative ideas, you should really apply for a job there.

[Perry]

Is that ignorance I smell???

Did you come up with all this crap on your own? AiG is in need of another good YEC "scientist" with creative ideas, you should really apply for a job there.

I'm flattered.

[AntonS]

I think the water came from the heaven, not from the earth. The earth is a thin sheet of 3-dimensional manifold. I don't know exactly what the heaven is, but perhaps there are much water in the heaven. The heaven is outside the earth. The Universe is a 10-dimensional space. So quantum leaps are not really leaps. A particle can move using another dimensions, it looks like a leap in 3-dimensional manifold, but it is only a projection. Maybe the dark matter is in the heaven, it may be water or whatever.

[AntonS]

The date of the Flood is around 500,000 years ago.

[kuboes1831]

The date of the Flood is around 500,000 years ago.

How do you know? Were you there?

[AntonS]

How do you know? Were you there?
I believe in it. I don't know exactly whether i was there.

[Lion]

I want to answer some of your questions. Somebody asked where all the water of the flood came from. I don’t know for sure but I do know just a bit about the earth. I think it came from the fountans mentioned in Gen 7:11. The earth must have done some collapsing at the same time.

Science from measurements that parts of the earth are slowly rising. The Scandinavian peninsula is rising. A light house in Sweden that used to be near sea level is now 1000 feet above where it was. The bonneville salt flats where speed trials are often held are 87 feet lower than the old shore line which is clearly visible on the eastern side. The hills on the western side of the salton sea have a clearly defined sand beach along the old shore higher than the present sea level. The explanation for this phenomena is that the crust of the earth is thicker at those areas and the semi molten mantle had been depressed by the weight above, whether it was water or ice. In the case of bonneville it was water. In scandinavia it was ice from the ice age. Careful surveys have been made of the land behind Glen Canyon and Hoover dams that show the land has been depressed by the weight of the water.

There is a prophecy in Rev 16:18-20 that at the second coming of Christ every island fled away and the mountains were not found. So the earth will be flattened. God can do anything He wants to do.

[brett]

I want to answer some of your questions. Somebody asked where all the water of the flood came from. I don’t know for sure but I do know just a bit about the earth. I think it came from the fountans mentioned in Gen 7:11. The earth must have done some collapsing at the same time.

Science from measurements that parts of the earth are slowly rising. The Scandinavian peninsula is rising. A light house in Sweden that used to be near sea level is now 1000 feet above where it was.

Wow!


The bonneville salt flats where speed trials are often held are 87 feet lower than the old shore line which is clearly visible on the eastern side. The hills on the western side of the salton sea have a clearly defined sand beach along the old shore higher than the present sea level. The explanation for this phenomena is that the crust of the earth is thicker at those areas and the semi molten mantle had been depressed by the weight above, whether it was water or ice. In the case of bonneville it was water. In scandinavia it was ice from the ice age. Careful surveys have been made of the land behind Glen Canyon and Hoover dams that show the land has been depressed by the weight of the water.

Interesting. So if God supernaturally caused all the fountains of the great deep to open up at the same time, how could we not expect some collapsing of the earth's surface?

Gen. 7:11 ...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth...

It seems a rearrangement of the earth's geography is directly implied by this passage.

[maudman]

I would like to ask some questions.


Where did all the documents that bare record of these event come from? Where was their geographical origins?
Why are there still those cultures that do evil all over the world, If the flood was to wipe out evil? Why would God waste his time wiping out something that was going to re-accur shortly after an event that was suppose to end the evil in it? And how do you explain the Giants that were suppose to be destoyed during the flood?

How did they get back in the scripture years after the flood? Why is Joshua smiting them with the sword and David is knocking one in the head with a stone.

Why would YHVH kill all of mankind for the evil that was aready in the world that causes Adam to fall? Why did the serpent which was a beast of the field the most cunning of all the beast of the field, already know evil and why does God say Man has chosen to becaome as one of Us to know Good and Evil. Why is God of the knowledge of Good and Evil?

Why would GoD need to destroy the whole earth because a man that was doing evil in a location far removed from many of the cultures that we now see all over the planet?

You should be translating the word earth to mean the "Land" because that is what it meant to them. He cause a flood throughout the "land" where his(YHVH) children live its their destruction. YHVH is destoying the son of man "the son of Adam" because of thier sin. Sin is transgression against YHVH will, their evil was against YHVH. It was a flooding of the land where they lived.

Why does the LORD throughout the entire bible threaten his people and not the rest of the world why is he pre-occpied with their righteousness and not mankind, that is suppose to be evil? Why does the Lord threaten his people with destruction at the hands of evil ones? Why did God send prophets to his people? Why were they warning the Lords people?

And why do you think that most people today think that the warning of the prophet is a warning to the world and their damnation? When the prophet came to warn his own children not the evil that was coming on them by an evil that already exist and evil that God uses to punish his own.

[Perry]

I would like to ask some questions.


Where did all the documents that bare record of these event come from? Where was their geographical origins?
Why are there still those cultures that do evil all over the world, If the flood was to wipe out evil? Why would God waste his time wiping out something that was going to re-accur shortly after an event that was suppose to end the evil in it? And how do you explain the Giants that were suppose to be destoyed during the flood?

How did they get back in the scripture years after the flood? Why is Joshua smiting them with the sword and David is knocking one in the head with a stone.

Why would YHVH kill all of mankind for the evil that was aready in the world that causes Adam to fall? Why did the serpent which was a beast of the field the most cunning of all the beast of the field, already know evil and why does God say Man has chosen to becaome as one of Us to know Good and Evil. Why is God of the knowledge of Good and Evil?

Why would GoD need to destroy the whole earth because a man that was doing evil in a location far removed from many of the cultures that we now see all over the planet?

You should be translating the word earth to mean the "Land" because that is what it meant to them. He cause a flood throughout the "land" where his(YHVH) children live its their destruction. YHVH is destoying the son of man "the son of Adam" because of thier sin. Sin is transgression against YHVH will, their evil was against YHVH. It was a flooding of the land where they lived.

Why does the LORD throughout the entire bible threaten his people and not the rest of the world why is he pre-occpied with their righteousness and not mankind, that is suppose to be evil? Why does the Lord threaten his people with destruction at the hands of evil ones? Why did God send prophets to his people? Why were they warning the Lords people?

And why do you think that most people today think that the warning of the prophet is a warning to the world and their damnation? When the prophet came to warn his own children not the evil that was coming on them by an evil that already exist and evil that God uses to punish his own.

Well, more practical question for us to ask might be, "Why did the raven stay gone, and the dove return? Why did Noah take 7's of doves, and 2's of ravens?

[rogero]

Well, more practical question for us to ask might be, "Why did the raven stay gone, and the dove return? Why did Noah take 7's of doves, and 2's of ravens?

An even more practical question is where the dove obtained the olive leaf if the entire biosphere had been destroyed?



And the dove came into him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.



And, remember it was only (v. 9) seven days before that the dove "had found no rest for the sole of her foot." So, are you tellin' me that an olive tree can grow and produce leaves in seven days?

Oooh, oooh! --- I know the answer -- it's a miracle!

And, another thing -- about the 2's and 7's --- wasn't the "clean" vs. "unclean" distinction defined only hundreds of years later in the Mosaic Law?

At least you're trying to think...

[kuboes1831]

God can do anything He wants to do.
Yes I agree but
He wont do what yECs want Him to do!!!!

[grmorton]

Yes I agree but
He wont do what yECs want Him to do!!!!

It isn't a matter of what the YECs want him to do, it is a matter of the YECs telling God what to do. They are God's boss and He is their obsequious servile servant, who, when a YEC says "Do a Miracle," God say "How many". And the YECs tell Him and He does them. That is the theology of YECism. YECs are the boss of the universe.

[kuboes1831]

It isn't a matter of what the YECs want him to do, it is a matter of the YECs telling God what to do. They are God's boss and He is their obsequious servile servant, who, when a YEC says "Do a Miracle," God say "How many". And the YECs tell Him and He does them. That is the theology of YECism. YECs are the boss of the universe.

Glenn this is either offensive or true!

[brett]

It isn't a matter of what the YECs want him to do, it is a matter of the YECs telling God what to do. They are God's boss and He is their obsequious servile servant, who, when a YEC says "Do a Miracle," God say "How many". And the YECs tell Him and He does them. That is the theology of YECism. YECs are the boss of the universe.

Boy talk about sour grapes. Is this the best you guys got? No wonder you guys can't get any YECs to play with you.

Lion gave a very compelling post on vertical land movement and suddenly the thread goes dead and the ad hominems fly. I think this sufficiently answers your other question from the thread, "Question for this forum."

[grmorton]

I want to answer some of your questions. Somebody asked where all the water of the flood came from. I don’t know for sure but I do know just a bit about the earth. I think it came from the fountans mentioned in Gen 7:11. The earth must have done some collapsing at the same time.

Science from measurements that parts of the earth are slowly rising. The Scandinavian peninsula is rising. A light house in Sweden that used to be near sea level is now 1000 feet above where it was. The bonneville salt flats where speed trials are often held are 87 feet lower than the old shore line which is clearly visible on the eastern side. The hills on the western side of the salton sea have a clearly defined sand beach along the old shore higher than the present sea level. The explanation for this phenomena is that the crust of the earth is thicker at those areas and the semi molten mantle had been depressed by the weight above, whether it was water or ice. In the case of bonneville it was water. In scandinavia it was ice from the ice age. Careful surveys have been made of the land behind Glen Canyon and Hoover dams that show the land has been depressed by the weight of the water.

There is a prophecy in Rev 16:18-20 that at the second coming of Christ every island fled away and the mountains were not found. So the earth will be flattened. God can do anything He wants to do.


Brett said that no one had answered this post. I will change that. And he called what I said an ad hominem. But this is an example of YECs telling God what he must do. When I was a YEC I too did this. I had God changing my favorite physical constant (or rather I was telling God that He had changed it during the flood). Humphreys, in the RATE book is telling God that he changed several physical constants. Baumgardner tells God that He must absorbing heat miraculously. Lion tells God that He flattened the earth. All of this is a bunch of YECs telling God what he must do to have a flood. If you all truly believed that God was in charge and that he could do it miraculously, you would just say, it was a miracle and cease trying to tell God what he must do.

Now, Lion is right that the Scandinavia is uplifting and that the area around the great salt lake is tilted. But this is not due to the weight of the flood waters, nor is it a global situation. What Lion doesn't say is that some areas of the world are subsiding--i.e. going down. The North Sea area has been subsiding almost throughout geologic history--always going down but never coming up. The Williston Basin is similar. The Gulf of Mexico northern coast is going down.

This is a natural thing and it is obeying isostatic laws. Scandinavia is uplifting because 5,000 feet of ice was removed from that land just 10,000 years ago. The movement of Scandinavia and the gravity anomaly there shows that the movement has been going on for longer than the YECs say the earth is old.

I once wrote a paper for the CRSQ called "Uplift and Subsidence". It was accepted for publication but when Emmett Williams became editor, he was concerned with my ideological purity and he rejected it. Thus it wasn't published. I thought this was abysmal behavior but hey, he had the power of censorship. In that paper I showed that UNLESS it was a miracle pure and simple, there isn't enough time for the land to subside and rise during the flood. It would take 20,000 years to subside the crust and then another 20,000 to rise up. Of course, y'all will say it is a miracle. Maybe it is, but if it is, all you can do is believe it. You can't argue for it as if this miracle were observtional science. The problem is that once one gets to the place where one must tell God how to flatten the earth because of this or that law, then one is in the business of telling God what he had to do. Indeed, even telling God what he did is telling God what to do.

To Kuboes, who asked if my last post was offensive or true. It is both. But also for my friend Kuboes, I will offer that his position makes God entirely incapable of communicating anything about real history to mankind. Kuboes, you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

[brett]

Brett said that no one had answered this post. I will change that. And he called what I said an ad hominem. But this is an example of YECs telling God what he must do.

What do you believe YECs are telling God He must do?


When I was a YEC I too did this. I had God changing my favorite physical constant (or rather I was telling God that He had changed it during the flood). Humphreys, in the RATE book is telling God that he changed several physical constants. Baumgardner tells God that He must absorbing heat miraculously. Lion tells God that He flattened the earth. All of this is a bunch of YECs telling God what he must do to have a flood. If you all truly believed that God was in charge and that he could do it miraculously, you would just say, it was a miracle and cease trying to tell God what he must do.

I read Lion’s post and all of mine. Can you show the quote where it is said, 'God MUST have done it this way!'? There are numerous theories about how God could have done it. This one just seems to be the most logical. The OPer was asking for speculations about where the water went and how God may have accomplished it.

In fact I would argue it is you telling God He must have done everything naturally. I’ll let you think about that one for a while.


Now, Lion is right that the Scandinavia is uplifting and that the area around the great salt lake is tilted. But this is not due to the weight of the flood waters, nor is it a global situation. What Lion doesn't say is that some areas of the world are subsiding--i.e. going down. The North Sea area has been subsiding almost throughout geologic history--always going down but never coming up. The Williston Basin is similar. The Gulf of Mexico northern coast is going down.

The speculation was that God raised the mountains up and the sea valleys down.


This is a natural thing and it is obeying isostatic laws.

So if it can happen naturally, why would it be too difficult for God?


In that paper I showed that UNLESS it was a miracle pure and simple, there isn't enough time for the land to subside and rise during the flood. It would take 20,000 years to subside the crust and then another 20,000 to rise up. Of course, y'all will say it is a miracle. Maybe it is, but if it is, all you can do is believe it. You can't argue for it as if this miracle were observtional science.

I’m amazed that one can read the Genesis record and not see the text is explicitly conveying a miraculous creation and miraculous flood. I didn’t tell God he performed a miracle He told me He did. I’m just believing Him. You seem to be looking at the same text and saying, “No God you didn’t do this. It happened naturally!”


The problem is that once one gets to the place where one must tell God how to flatten the earth because of this or that law, then one is in the business of telling God what he had to do. Indeed, even telling God what he did is telling God what to do.

The irony is pretty thick right now and I would imagine most can see it. YECs are very careful about not being dogmatic about their speculations. They are only dogmatic on the text. You on the other hand are dogmatic on the details insisting that God always uses naturalistic means.


To Kuboes, who asked if my last post was offensive or true. It is both. But also for my friend Kuboes, I will offer that his position makes God entirely incapable of communicating anything about real history to mankind. Kuboes, you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

Oh boy! Irony overload! BTW I don't think Kuboes was casting stones at you but maybe I missed something.

Glen do you realize if you hadn’t started demanding God did everything naturally you’d probably still be a YEC??

[Perry]

An even more practical question is where the dove obtained the olive leaf if the entire biosphere had been destroyed?



And the dove came into him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.



And, remember it was only (v. 9) seven days before that the dove "had found no rest for the sole of her foot." So, are you tellin' me that an olive tree can grow and produce leaves in seven days?

Oooh, oooh! --- I know the answer -- it's a miracle!

And, another thing -- about the 2's and 7's --- wasn't the "clean" vs. "unclean" distinction defined only hundreds of years later in the Mosaic Law?

At least you're trying to think...

spoken like a true raven

[rogero]

spoken like a true raven

Well, that was a cerebral non-answer to my questions. :lol:

[grmorton]

What do you believe YECs are telling God He must do?

Because no where in the bible does it say that God flattened the earth, had a vapor canopy, had caverns full of water beneath the crust, had comets hit the earth to cause the flood. No where in the Bible does it say that God changed physical constants, absorbed heats, had white holes to make the rest of the universe look old, or that the continents were rapidly drifted by runaway subduction. NOWHERE. ALL YOU YECS ARE ADDING TO THE BIBLE!!!!

Then you act as if God had to do what it was you said he did. You act the way you do in the face of the evidence we try to show you because you KNOW that God did what you said he did. Your theology is all screwed up because you make yourselves out to be God's boss. You boss him around like some flunky.



I read Lion’s post and all of mine. Can you show the quote where it is said, 'God MUST have done it this way!'? There are numerous theories about how God could have done it. This one just seems to be the most logical. The OPer was asking for speculations about where the water went and how God may have accomplished it.

The fact that you ignore all scientific evidence to hold to these 'God might have done it routines' is evidence that you believe God did it that way. You don't just think it is a theoretical possibility that God did it that way, you hold the silly beliefs you do by acting as if God could do nothing else.

And you are right that there are many ways God could have done it, but you never include the possibility that God might have done it via evolution and thus you ignore God's command to the earth to bring forth life. The earth brought the life forth. That is what modern science says. That is what the Bible says. But of course, you prefer to tell God what to do rather than read his word.

In fact I would argue it is you telling God He must have done everything naturally. I’ll let you think about that one for a while.

I am looking at the evidence which tells me what happened. this is the evidence God left in the earth. It supports my view of earth history not yours. But of course, you like adding things to the Bible which are never said, and denying what we can see in the earth's pile of evidence.



The speculation was that God raised the mountains up and the sea valleys down.

No the speculation was that God flattened the earth during the flood. Show that to me in Scripture, not from Psalms but from Genesis 6-9. You can't. But you like to think you could write a better Bible. How arrogant of you YECs.



[/quote]So if it can happen naturally, why would it be too difficult for God?[/quote]

I didn't say it would be too difficult for God. But if God did it miraculously, then one can't say how God did it and one must simply accept that it is a miracle. Don't add all sorts of spectacular nonsense to the bible.

I’m amazed that one can read the Genesis record and not see the text is explicitly conveying a miraculous creation and miraculous flood.

The Bible says, "And God said: earth bring forth grass". The earth brought forth the grass. The Bible says it, I believe it. You don't.

If I say, "Brett, cook an egg" do you think I cooked the egg? Of course not. You cooked the egg. So when God says "Earth bring forth living creatures", why do you interpret that same phraseology differently and act as if the earth had nothing to do with the bringing forth of life? You are inconsistent.

I didn’t tell God he performed a miracle He told me He did.

I am sorry, there you go again. Nowhere does the word miracle appear in Genesis 1 or 2. That is your interpretation of the Scripture. God didn't tell you he did a miracle. Point me to the verse where the word miracle appears. If God told you that, then he would have used the word. But of course, you read much into the scripture that isn't there.


I’m just believing Him. You seem to be looking at the same text and saying, “No God you didn’t do this. It happened naturally!”

No I am not. I am saying that God miraculosly set up a universe in which life arose according to the rules he set up. that is different than saying it happened naturally. It is still a miracle. But, God didn't tell me it was a miracle. That is my belief.





Pure and total BS. Did you ever see Socrates? have you ever spent ten years trying to talk the YECs out of any of their beliefs? I have. It is utter futility and they are as dogmatic a group of people as exist anywhere on earth.


[quote[ They are only dogmatic on the text. You on the other hand are dogmatic on the details insisting that God always uses naturalistic means.



Oh boy! Irony overload! BTW I don't think Kuboes was casting stones at you but maybe I missed something.

Glen do you realize if you hadn’t started demanding God did everything naturally you’d probably still be a YEC??

First off, I shot at Kuboes, he didn't shoot at me. Seconldy, I came to believe that God's design was much deeper and more subtle than YEC believe. It isn't that I demanded anything of God. I looked at the geologic evidence and realized that everything the YECs were telling me was false, and thus God didn't do it the way the YECs said. I didn't tell God what to do, you do that. You make up all sorts of things which God supposedly did. I don't. I don't have god flatten the earth, you do.

I only demand that truth be my goal, whereever that leads.

[maudman]

The laws of Nature vs the Laws of matter

The point of this might be an old and worn out discussion but I think won’t hurt to discuss in a certain light. There have been important concepts born out of making a distinction between the fundamental laws of matter and the nature of biological life.

To most of us TE’s this is at the core of our understanding, understanding the differences and the importance that gives rise to a deterministic evolution or Intelligent designer, the purpose of change. That creativity is the driving force of an evolution and that creativity is an evolutionary thought process as one better understands that which is being manipulated and makes changes that reflect a better understanding of the matter itself and this manipulation of matter that gives rise to Biological life is what we call Nature.

That which we call nature is in reality a level above the fundamental laws of matter not an evolution of matter. Biology and its workings are in fact how God works in harmony with the laws matter and God rising above its state of being.

The laws of energy and laws of entropy demonstrate that the natural course of matter is to decay as we understand these laws we begin to understand that matter of and by itself could never give rise to life as we know it. These as many understand are some of the principle argument of the arthroptic principle. What we call Nature is in reality evidences of forces overcoming the effects the laws of matter when unattended. That nature is a fluid dynamic progression in the opposite direction of the laws of matter. Biological Life is a result of this dynamic force that most of us call the handy work God. That Biological Life became what it was because something overcame the limits of the natural order of matter.

Example:

If I were put on an Island as a natural man and left there to live, if don’t work against the laws of matter in one year I would be reduce basically those element of the periodic chart. That subjecting myself to the laws of matter I am reduced or decayed. That is the fundamental direction of the laws of matter I don’t become better but worse and death shortly follows.

But what nature does is it gives me the capacity to work against those laws so that I can do work that increase my matter so the effects of decay are not as noticeable until those thing that I do get left undone.

YEC’s When we look at Nature we see the hand of God in an on going Dynamic process that requires our efforts to understand and to sustain what we call biological life. That God doesn’t have to do miracles although he has and does and could, nature is a miracle in itself and we see it all day everyday and we TE’s get to marvel more than most because we care enough to ask WHY! We see like a computer something as simple as 0 1 On and Off grow to fantastic complexity. We see programs within programs and we Marvel at it and we Give God the credit for being the Genius that most simple don’t care to understand at levels many never consider. We see the Word(Logos) the (Will) of the Father and the (spirit) the Godhead in a way most often unappreciated.

One should understand the differences between what we call the laws of nature and the Laws of matter and when begins to understand these differences we begin to understand God creative evolutionary Genius.

Peace to all

[brett]

Because no where in the bible does it say that God flattened the earth, had a vapor canopy, had caverns full of water beneath the crust, had comets hit the earth to cause the flood. No where in the Bible does it say that God changed physical constants, absorbed heats, had white holes to make the rest of the universe look old, or that the continents were rapidly drifted by runaway subduction. NOWHERE. ALL YOU YECS ARE ADDING TO THE BIBLE!!!!

This has to be the worst argument I’ve ever seen you make. No YEC has ever said these things were in the text. In fact you know as well as I do that many YECs don’t believe in a vapor canopy. These are hypotheses about what might have happened. If hypotheses are adding to the Bible I’d be very afraid my friend. :wink:


Then you act as if God had to do what it was you said he did.

You’re very smart but I noticed when confronted with good arguments you get a little reckless in your accusations. You can repeat this strawman till your hearts content.


You act the way you do in the face of the evidence we try to show you because you KNOW that God did what you said he did. Your theology is all screwed up because you make yourselves out to be God's boss. You boss him around like some flunky.

All I can say is I’m glad you’re not on our side anymore. Talk about a cornered badger.


The fact that you ignore all scientific evidence to hold to these 'God might have done it routines' is evidence that you believe God did it that way. You don't just think it is a theoretical possibility that God did it that way, you hold the silly beliefs you do by acting as if God could do nothing else.

This is the part you don’t get. Your arguments are not scientific ones. They are philosophical. You are insisting that when the Bible says Goddidit it means it happened naturally. This is bad logic. I know it upsets you but its true. You have no scientific argument for this as science doesn’t touch the issues of miracles. You have somehow philosophically convinced yourself that God must have done all these things in Genesis naturally. This is the flaw that took you out of the YEC camp. It had nothing to do with science.


And you are right that there are many ways God could have done it, but you never include the possibility that God might have done it via evolution and thus you ignore God's command to the earth to bring forth life.

Actually I had considered that option but it conflicted with the plain reading of the text. You on the other hand insist on a natural explanation, thus believe He did it via evolution. It’s you who is putting God in a box.


The earth brought the life forth. That is what modern science says. That is what the Bible says. But of course, you prefer to tell God what to do rather than read his word.

Yes gm all creatures including Adam were brought forth from the earth. And when we read the text we know what that means. Adam was formed from the dirt of the ground. He was brought forth from the earth. And just as we were brought forth so we will return. If you are tying to add evolution to this then by your logic you are adding to scripture.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....


I am looking at the evidence which tells me what happened. this is the evidence God left in the earth.

Scientific investigation cannot verify nor falsify miracles. By insisting science holds the key you are insisting God did everything naturally. You’re doing exactly what you claim YECs are doing.


It supports my view of earth history not yours. But of course, you like adding things to the Bible which are never said, and denying what we can see in the earth's pile of evidence.

Funny I don’t recall the word “evolution” in Genesis.


No the speculation was that God flattened the earth during the flood. Show that to me in Scripture, not from Psalms but from Genesis 6-9. You can't. But you like to think you could write a better Bible. How arrogant of you YECs.

It’s only arrogant if we claim it to be anything else than a hypothesis. You on the other hand are dogmatically adding naturalism to the Bible. Basically you’re a theistic naturalist.


I didn't say it would be too difficult for God. But if God did it miraculously, then one can't say how God did it and one must simply accept that it is a miracle. Don't add all sorts of spectacular nonsense to the bible.

There is no speculation that God is portrayed in the Bible as a God of miracles. And there is no doubt there are miracles in Genesis. We may speculate about how those miracles played out, but we can be dogmatic from the text that miracles indeed happened.


The Bible says, "And God said: earth bring forth grass". The earth brought forth the grass. The Bible says it, I believe it. You don't.

I believe every life form including Adam and all the plants were formed from the ground. Gen 2 gives us more details on how that looked. It was a great supernatural act. OTOH, evolution is nowhere to be found.


If I say, "Brett, cook an egg" do you think I cooked the egg? Of course not. You cooked the egg. So when God says "Earth bring forth living creatures", why do you interpret that same phraseology differently and act as if the earth had nothing to do with the bringing forth of life? You are inconsistent.

Wow. Notice in your analogy the world “cooked” was used consistently. Yet does the Bible say the earth “created” the plants and animals. Does the Bible say God “brought forth” all that is in the earth in six days? Can’t you see how your stretching the text to conform it to your beliefs.

It’s very simple. God formed all creatures from the elements of the earth just as he formed man from the elements of the earth. Trying to read evolution into that is going way beyond the text.


I am sorry, there you go again. Nowhere does the word miracle appear in Genesis 1 or 2. That is your interpretation of the Scripture. God didn't tell you he did a miracle. Point me to the verse where the word miracle appears. If God told you that, then he would have used the word. But of course, you read much into the scripture that isn't there.

I’m just going to grant that you were a little upset when you wrote this. This is such a bad argument I can barely bring myself to respond to it. It speaks volumes on its own. I’m definitely going to save this quote for a long time.

BTW, the word “evolution” doesn't seem to come up in my word search either. Hmmm. Wonder what that proves?


No I am not. I am saying that God miraculosly set up a universe in which life arose according to the rules he set up. that is different than saying it happened naturally. It is still a miracle. But, God didn't tell me it was a miracle. That is my belief.

IOW you believe natural events are miracles. Clever!


Pure and total BS. Did you ever see Socrates? have you ever spent ten years trying to talk the YECs out of any of their beliefs? I have. It is utter futility and they are as dogmatic a group of people as exist anywhere on earth.

No it is only you that is dogmatic about how God did things. You are insisting that God did things naturally and never added anything to natural process during the creation and flood. Why do you do this? Well maybe since science is your expertise you need to have it this way. But Soc never did this. He never put God in a naturalistic box.


First off, I shot at Kuboes, he didn't shoot at me. Seconldy, I came to believe that God's design was much deeper and more subtle than YEC believe.

Yes but this was a philosophical conclusion you came to not a scientific one. It certainly didn't come from the text.


It isn't that I demanded anything of God. I looked at the geologic evidence and realized that everything the YECs were telling me was false, and thus God didn't do it the way the YECs said.

If you’re talking about scientific evidence then you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.


I didn't tell God what to do, you do that. You make up all sorts of things which God supposedly did. I don't. I don't have god flatten the earth, you do.

You are absolutely demanding that God did everything naturalistically. It’s not in scripture but you are dogmatic. You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of.

[Barry Desborough]

When I hear questions like this, I then ask “how big is your God?” The flood was not a natural event so we don’t actually know the mechanisms He may have used. He certainly could have created water (not a big problem for the One who created the entire universe) but regardless, any time you start investigating a miracle of God, science becomes quite useless. This seems to rather upset many scientists I’ve noticed, but it should be quite evident to them. Science can’t investigate supernatural acts. The only thing we can really trust in this area is the Bible.

Where did all the water go? I doubt that God created more water. From various passage it seems He may have simply raised the mountains up higher than they were prior. 70% of the earth is covered in water right now. Just a few adjustments by the Almighty and we're covered again! But of course that won't happen.

Here's a pretty good article on the subject if you’re interested.
Noah's Flood—what about all that water? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp)



If the world were a perfect sphere I understand the water would be almost 2 miles deep around the entire planet. That’s a lot of water! A few mountains would not make much of a difference. There certainly were mountains pre flood but scripture doesn’t say how many and how high. Interestingly the Bible says that in some places during the flood the water was as shallow as 20 feet (Gen. 7:20), so obviously the earth was not a perfect sphere at that time.

But this is beside the point. We’re talking about a miracle and God didn’t share with us exactly how He did it. Therefore, there's no way to test it in a lab, or investigate it scientifically. You either believe it or you don’t.

Gen. 7:17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished — birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

This whole thread is a spoof, right? Please tell me it is!

[rogero]

This whole thread is a spoof, right? Please tell me it is!

Alas, I am afraid it is not. The only positive outcome of this thread is that it's now perfectly clear that the YECs participating here don't give a hoot about consistency of physical evidence and scientific explanations of Earth's history. Upshot: We learned that "it's a miracle" is a wonderfully unfalsifiable fall back position.

[Perry]

Well, I'm not sure I'm a YEC, but when I see the YECs' opposition, I want to be on their side! Interestingly, the main thing the YEC haters want to construe is a historical innaccuracy of the flood. Earth could be billions of years old, and all the YECs could change their minds and agree that this is so, but they wouldn't deny what a third grader would think obvious: There was a global flood! I think I know why. Previously, I held the opinion that the uniformitarians wanted to invent their own, nice little Goddy-God that would never judge mankind, so they deny obvious past judgements. I no longer hold that opinion. I think the obviousness of the flood is denied by GRMorton and his adoring buddy Rogero because they had cerebral/spiritual trainwrecks somwhere along the line, causing a punctuated equilibrium of the soul, and the result was a cranial Cambrian explosion. There is no recovery from this devolutional phenomenon, at least not yet that I'm aware of. If there was, it would be a greater miracle than the flood, for sure. But I guess it could happen. My point is , going from young E to old E ain't a big deal....denying the global flood is.

[rogero]

Well, I'm not sure I'm a YEC, but when I see the YECs' opposition, I want to be on their side! Interestingly, the main thing the YEC haters want to construe is a historical innaccuracy of the flood. Earth could be billions of years old, and all the YECs could change their minds and agree that this is so, but they wouldn't deny what a third grader would think obvious: There was a global flood! I think I know why. Previously, I held the opinion that the uniformitarians wanted to invent their own, nice little Goddy-God that would never judge mankind, so they deny obvious past judgements. I no longer hold that opinion. I think the obviousness of the flood is denied by GRMorton and his adoring buddy Rogero because they had cerebral/spiritual trainwrecks somwhere along the line, causing a punctuated equilibrium of the soul, and the result was a cranial Cambrian explosion. There is no recovery from this devolutional phenomenon, at least not yet that I'm aware of. If there was, it would be a greater miracle than the flood, for sure. But I guess it could happen. My point is , going from young E to old E ain't a big deal....denying the global flood is.

So far you've failed miserably to defend a global flood from physical evidence. You wanna give it another try? :blush:

FYI, third-graders generally are not at the stage of cognitive development to comprehend abstract reasoning, e.g., of the kind necessary for a full comprehension of the scientific method. Are you self-classifying here with your illogical and childish rant, Perry?

So, c'mon, Son -- let's see some more of that physical evidence for a global flood.

[Perry]

So far you've failed miserably to defend a global flood from physical evidence. You wanna give it another try? :blush:

FYI, third-graders generally are not at the stage of cognitive development to comprehend abstract reasoning, e.g., of the kind necessary for a full comprehension of the scientific method. Are you self-classifying here with your illogical and childish rant, Perry?

So, c'mon, Son -- let's see some more of that physical evidence for a global flood.

Your sense of humor will catch up with your IQ someday, and you'll be quite funny, no doubt.

[grmorton]

I had written:
Because no where in the bible does it say that God flattened the earth, had a vapor canopy, had caverns full of water beneath the crust, had comets hit the earth to cause the flood. No where in the Bible does it say that God changed physical constants, absorbed heats, had white holes to make the rest of the universe look old, or that the continents were rapidly drifted by runaway subduction. NOWHERE. ALL YOU YECS ARE ADDING TO THE BIBLE!!!!


Brett replied:

This has to be the worst argument I’ve ever seen you make. No YEC has ever said these things were in the text. In fact you know as well as I do that many YECs don’t believe in a vapor canopy. These are hypotheses about what might have happened. If hypotheses are adding to the Bible I’d be very afraid my friend. :wink:[/quote]

I agree with you that they are not in the text, however you are quite wrong if you think that YECs haven't tried to see them in the text.

In the case of the canopy, YECs have often said that it was in the text. Gen 1:6-7. "And god made the exanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse." See Jody Dilliow, "The Waters Above, p. 43ff

You are wrong.

Walter Brown says that the fountains of the deep were caverns with water in them prior to the flood. He sees them being in the text that way.

Of the changing of physical constants, Humphreys tries to see it in the NT.


“The Greek word translated ‘corruption’ (φθορα phthora) includes the idea of ‘decay,’ which of course brings to mind the decay of nuclei. Also notice that God subjected the whole Creation to futility and decay, not just the earth. From all this, I surmise that nuclei were completely stable from at least the last part of day three of the Creation week until the fall of man. After that, nuclei may have decayed at a moderate rate for 1656 years, until God accelerated the decay to start the Genesis Flood.” D. Russell Humphreys, “Accelerated Nuclear Decay: A viable Hypothesis?” in Vardiman et al, editors, Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth, (El Cajon: ICR and CRS, 2000), p. 357


I would like to know where in the Bible No. 5 and 6 are found.

"A careful analysis of the relevant exegetical data reveals at least six areas in which supernaturalism is clearly demanded in the doctrine of the Flood: (1) the divinely-revealed design of the Ark; (2) the gathering and care of the animals; (3) the uplift of oceanic waters from beneath; (4) the release of waters from above; (5) the formation of our present ocean basins; and (6) the formation of our present continents and mountain ranges. Each of these supernatual aspects of the Flood constitutes a radical break with the naturalistic presuppositions of modern scientism and for this reason deserves our careful consideration." [/quote]

Thus, maybe you should CRITICALLY read more YEC literature

You’re very smart but I noticed when confronted with good arguments you get a little reckless in your accusations. You can repeat this strawman till your hearts content.

I believe I just documented what I charged. Please have the honor to withdraw the above.


When I said that YECs boss God around like He is their flunky, I elicited this response from Brett:


All I can say is I’m glad you’re not on our side anymore. Talk about a cornered badger.

Consider What Baumgardner is actually doing here:

[cite= John Baumgardner, "The Imperative of Non stationary Natural Law in Relation to Noah's Flood" (CRSQ 27(3): 98 100 (1990)) p. 100 ] "It is the author's suspicion that God modified some single fundamental aspect of the natural order which in turn affected all the fundamental forces including the gravitational force, the electrostatic force, and the nuclear forces in a manner that did not fatally disrupt the delicate balances that exist in living systems and whose signature in the astronomical data may be subtle. The author believes that the sooner the community of scientists who are aware of the integrity of the Bible is convinced the system of natural law that normally describes the orderly behavior of the cosmos cannot have been time invariant, the sooner genuine progress will be made in establishing the framework that accounts for Noah's Flood and the geological history of our planet in a robust and satisfying way." [/quote]

Why does God have to do what Baumgardner suggests?

And Humphreys had God changing two constants, essentially telling God what miracle he must perform to cause the decay rates to change:

[cite=D. Russell Humphreys, “Accelerated Nuclear Decay: A viable Hypothesis?” in Vardiman et al, editors, Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth, (El Cajon: ICR and CRS, 2000), p.361]“Doubling Ro from 1.0 fm to 2.0 fm would decrease the half-life by a factor of trillions, dropping it from gigayears down to days!”

“Thus we would expect smaller gauge boson masses to accelerate [beta]-decay rates.”




This is the part you don’t get. Your arguments are not scientific ones. They are philosophical. You are insisting that when the Bible says Goddidit it means it happened naturally. This is bad logic. I know it upsets you but its true. You have no scientific argument for this as science doesn’t touch the issues of miracles. You have somehow philosophically convinced yourself that God must have done all these things in Genesis naturally. This is the flaw that took you out of the YEC camp. It had nothing to do with science.

NO, what I am saying is that if God did it miraculously in the way YECs say He did it, we should find observational evidence X,Y, and Z in the the world. Since we don't find X, Y or Z to be true, then the hypothesis that God did it miracously is false.

If God did it miraculously but made it look as if there were no flood (like footprints and trails on nearly every level of the geologic column) then God is lying to us.


Of evolution:

Actually I had considered that option but it conflicted with the plain reading of the text. You on the other hand insist on a natural explanation, thus believe He did it via evolution. It’s you who is putting God in a box.

Not if I see the Bible teaching a naturalistic origin of life.



If you are tying to add evolution to this then by your logic you are adding to scripture.

Once again, not if the earth brought forth life and the Bible says it.



[quote]Scientific investigation cannot verify nor falsify miracles. By insisting science holds the key you are insisting God did everything naturally. You’re doing exactly what you claim YECs are doing.

True, science can't verify miracles, but to explain the flood, everything, and I mean absolutely everything must be a miracle and then God must make it look like there was no miracle. IN a global flood all the dead animals should be on the very bottom of the geologic column. But they aren't. THey are found throughout the various layers. How did they live until late in the flood? Why are all the animals in the Mesozoic different from those in the Cambrian? And why are all animals today different from those in the Mesozoic?

It’s only arrogant if we claim it to be anything else than a hypothesis. You on the other hand are dogmatically adding naturalism to the Bible. Basically you’re a theistic naturalist.

It is arrogant because you all act like your hypotheses have been proven and that anyone who doesn't share your wild view of the world shouldn't be treated as a christian.



There is no speculation that God is portrayed in the Bible as a God of miracles. And there is no doubt there are miracles in Genesis. We may speculate about how those miracles played out, but we can be dogmatic from the text that miracles indeed happened.

In Genesis 2-11, there is no demonstrable miracle. other than a talking snake and the confusion of tongues



I believe every life form including Adam and all the plants were formed from the ground. Gen 2 gives us more details on how that looked. It was a great supernatural act. OTOH, evolution is nowhere to be found.

It doesn't say God created those plants like a magician pulling rabbits out of the hat.



Wow. Notice in your analogy the world “cooked” was used consistently. Yet does the Bible say the earth “created” the plants and animals. Does the Bible say God “brought forth” all that is in the earth in six days? Can’t you see how your stretching the text to conform it to your beliefs.

Well, if I am at least I am trying to fit the observational data with the Scriptural data. You simply say, ignore the observational data IF it contradicts me, and believe my interpretation of the Bible. YOu have a one way filter. If the science supports you you accept it, if it doesn't you reject it. That is intellectually dishonest.

It’s very simple. God formed all creatures from the elements of the earth just as he formed man from the elements of the earth. Trying to read evolution into that is going way beyond the text.

THAT IS EVOLUTION! Do you think any evolutionist DOESN'T believe that all creatures were created from the elements on earth? Good grief how blind you are.



I’m just going to grant that you were a little upset when you wrote this. This is such a bad argument I can barely bring myself to respond to it. It speaks volumes on its own. I’m definitely going to save this quote for a long time.

I suspect your failure to answer is because you don't have one.


No it is only you that is dogmatic about how God did things.

And you don't dogmatically assert that the earth is young and that evolution didn't happen? :lmbo: Do you know the meaning of dogmatism? It comes from the root dogma--which is a firm religious belief. Science isn't dogmatic. It changes when new evidence comes in. YECS don't.


You are insisting that God did things naturally and never added anything to natural process during the creation and flood. Why do you do this? Well maybe since science is your expertise you need to have it this way. But Soc never did this. He never put God in a naturalistic box.

Soc didn't every say anything about science worth listening to. He just engaged in ad hominems.



Yes but this was a philosophical conclusion you came to not a scientific one. It certainly didn't come from the text.


No it is based upon cosmology and the Big bang. They are not philosophical. There is observational evidence supporting those views.


If you’re talking about scientific evidence then you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

re-read it. It obviously went over your head.



You are absolutely demanding that God did everything naturalistically. It’s not in scripture but you are dogmatic. You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of.

No, actually I don't demand that God did everything naturalistically. I believe in miracles. I believe I have experienced one once in my life. But I know that I can't tell God what miracle to do, and I know that some miracles which people claim happened, didn't actually happen. You must be a very gullible fellow to believe all the nonsense you have been taught by your YEC teachers. I bet you didn't spend more than a half an hour doubting anything they said to you.

[Jugulum]

If God did it miraculously but made it look as if there were no flood (like footprints and trails on nearly every level of the geologic column) then God is lying to us.
Point of curiousity. You refer here to your argument that a global flood couldn't have deposited the geologic column because all through the column we find features that couldn't be created during a flood. E.g., dessication cracks, bird tracks (including lines of peck marks), multiple layers of burrows (each of which requires time to create), etc.

Are these features found only at or near the surface? Or are they also found at significant depths below the present surface?

I'm sure it's obvious where I'm going with this. In a Flood geology paradigm, the phrase "all through the geologic column" is meaningless. It doesn't matter that we've decided to call a layer of rock Paleogene, or Triassic, or Devonian, etc.--the layers at the surface were either the last laid down in the Flood, deposited since the Flood, or exposed through erosion since the Flood, whatever we call them. If the features in question are found only at or near the surface, this argument against Flood deposition seems to lose force.

I realize this wouldn't explain underground "fossil" riverbeds.

[grmorton]

I think the obviousness of the flood is denied by GRMorton and his adoring buddy Rogero because they had cerebral/spiritual trainwrecks somwhere along the line, causing a punctuated equilibrium of the soul, and the result was a cranial Cambrian explosion. There is no recovery from this devolutional phenomenon, at least not yet that I'm aware of. If there was, it would be a greater miracle than the flood, for sure. But I guess it could happen. My point is , going from young E to old E ain't a big deal....denying the global flood is.

This from a guy who has never been on a geological field trip with real geologists.

I wish for once you guys wouldn't focus on your opinion of your opponent and for once focus on the actual data which caused our 'cerebral/spiritual trainwreck. Here is a river channel found buried at 10,000 feet in Oklahoma:

[attachment=1]
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/PennRedForkChannel1.jpg


Here is a buried tidal channel
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7342

I have posted this before but no one really explained this. I will try again. You don't have to like me and you can think me mad as a hatter, but you need to explain data like this.

Below is a picture of a cobble from a delightful book, Dance of the Continents, by John W. Harrington, 1983. This cobble shows something that is difficult to explain in young-earth creationism. The cobble is from the Old Red Sandstone of Ireland. This cobble shows 4 generations of conglomerate. The oldest is the smallest. Under the arrow you see a dark spot in the whitish part of the rock. That dark area is a conglomerate itself. It contains a bit of sandstone. Inside that dark spot you see a small light colored area. That is an area of sandstone. Those sand grains were eroded and deposited in the darkish sediments when the dark sediment was still soft. Thus we have the erosion of a sandstone as step 1. See 1; red arrow.

The darkish sediment was lithified and eroded and placed into another sedimentary conglomerate. This is step 2 the darkish pebble is placed inside the 3rd conglomerate pebble which is the green arrow.

The sediment marked by the green arrow was then lithified and eroded. That pebble was then deposited in the Devonian Old Red Sandstone, 360 million years ago.

There it sat where it was lithified long ago but eroded sometime within the past 2 million years during the glacial age. That cobble then was deposited in a new conglomerate being formed today along the shores of Ireland (Brandon Bay). Harrington picked the cobble up, saving it from a further cycle of incorporation into a conglomerate. But assuredly there are other cobbles just like it being buried today. Here is the pebble.

[attachment=2]
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/FourGenerationPebble.JPG

I reject the flood because no one can explain this data.

[Lion]

The objection the evolutionary people have to the YEC people is that they deny the possibility of divine interventon. They also refuse to consider the implied conditions that must have existed in the original creation. It is our purpose here to examine what the original conditions must have been.

The Bible asserts the creation of our habitable earth and the life on it occurred within a single week of seven ordinary days (Gen 1:2-2:3)' and that a worldwide flood destroyed all terrestrial life except that preserved in the ark (Gen 6-8).

Secular scholars have often scorned these accounts as being nonsensical, having little or no resemblance to the evidence preserved for us in the physical materials of the earth. Many have ridiculed any who choose to believe in a salvation based on the message contained in such an obviously fictional book.

Others have been somewhat more tolerant, while still maintaining that the Bible is not a factual record of history. To this end, Stephen Jay Gould has popularized the idea that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria. states that the Bible is simply not a book from which scientific information may be extrapolated, claiming instead that it speaks of a different reality from which moral import is drawn, but which has no specific physical meaning. Of a similar philosophical bent are theologians who, while not overtly rejecting the divine inspiration of Scripture, deny that the historical accounts necessarily(6) reflect real events. These scholars take Bible stories as fables teaching some underlying moral truth, but otherwise not to be taken seriously.

The conflict between these views may be considered on two levels. The issue obvious to all observers is verification. Can we establish the truth or falsity of the Bible from the evidence in the physical record? While this approach seems attractive to the scientific mind, it suffers from two fundamental flaws. First, regardless of our good intentions, we all approach any body of evidence with biases. These color our interpretation of the evidence. Even a superficial review of the scientific literature devoted to just the question of the Genesis flood will reveal that well-meaning scientists interpret of evidence in different ways. The apologetic literature merely magnifies this chaos. Even more difficult to surmount is the fact that regardless of whether one supports atheistic evolution or the biblical account, the events in question are unique and non-repeatable. Science is only able to give conclusive answers regarding repeatable phenomena. Eyewitnesses are required to testify as to the facts of historical events.

Much more important than verification is salvation. The Bible does not commend itself to us as merely a guidebook for good living. It presents itself as the inspired written guide to how the great controversy between the creator God
of the universe and Satan, the originator of sin, has played out in human history. In this battle mankind is doomed to destruction unless God provides a means of salvation. If the purportedly inspired record is less than completely true, how can we know what portions are true and what parts fable? The very authority of Scripture is jeopardized if the flood account is not true.

The Issue of Evidence:
God has never required man to accept the gospel without evidence. He led his people throughout history by providing for them in ways both personal and miraculous . Jesus worked many wonders intended to lead toward belief (John 14:11). The apostles recorded their message as eyewitnesses (1 Cor 153-8, 1 John 1: 1-3, etc.) so that those of us who were not present at the time would have an accurate record. Finally, the Holy Spirit continues today by bringing us to the truth (John 16:13) and providing the continual ministry of the Spirit to bring us to belief (1 Cor 11:8-10).

If God has been as careful in the physical record as He has been in the written record, we should expect sufficient evidence to buttress our faith. Indeed, such is the testimony of Scripture (Ps 19:1-6, Rom 1:20). But secular science has aligned itself almost universally with an evolutionary paradigm that stands in stark contradiction to the biblical record. This schema appears to be well fleshed out, with ultimate origins described for both the universe and life on earth. Steps along the way are proposed, giving uniformitarianism the patina of veracity.

Biblical creationism suffers greatly in this respect in comparison to uniformitarianism. Its reliance on a miracle appears mystical to onlookers. Fortunately, the intelligent design movement has provided good scientific evidence for the reasonableness of divine creation of life. In this respect, the creationist paradigm stands on a firmer scientific footing than the evolutionary, since to date it has proven impossible to assemble the chemical building blocks of life by purely natural means. But to insist on the physical reality of the flood event seems simply too much deus ex machina Biblical creationists are tarred by this semblance of anti-scientific belief. Many of the apologetic efforts by Christians are thus seen merely as reactionary resistance to scientific inquiry. This appearance is reinforced by the lack of a generally workable overall scientific paradigm for the events of the flood. It is our purpose to propose reasonable global mechanisms that can explain the physical evidence in a manner consistent with the biblical record.

The Task:
Given the universal nature of a global flood and the impact such an event would have on every aspect of the planet, the challenge is to present an overall picture of what happened without leaving out essential elements. This task can be comprehensive and overwhelming or broad-brush and manageable, depending on the detail in which the picture is viewed. The amount of evidence that can potentially be considered is beyond the ability of any human to master. If every small item is reviewed, the result will be encyclopedic and incomprehensible. For this reason we will limit our discussion to those key issues which we see as useful in establishing our thesis. Some mathematical discussion will be necessary, but for the most part will be left for other papers, since the purpose of this paper is to present a qualitative model. of events, not a quantitative analysis of each element. Some lines of evidence will necessarily be left for other discussions.

Biblical Inferences / Observed Facts.
The biblical accounts of creation and the flood give us a number of statements which may be analyzed to infer pre- and post-flood conditions, both geographic and climatologic. Any proposed model must take into account these elements, as well as observed modern circumstances. Issues such as the presence of unique animal populations in isolated locales such as Australia must also be considered.

The most obvious difficulty presented by the flood narrative is to identify the source of the floodwaters and the mechanism of their removal from the flood. While it is possible that God implemented the flood as a massive serie of miracles, this seems to be at odds with the orderly way God has worked in other arenas. We believe it is reasonable to believe that the flood was triggered miraculously, with the remainder of the process proceeding by mechanisms. As Vardiman states, "Between God's supernatural interventions in the affairs of the world, He normally allows the physical processes to operate according to the laws of science."

This expectation should not be confused with Deism. Rather, this is a basic belief that God operates in an orderly fashion. He created the natural universe in such a way that miraculous intervention is generally not needed. We believe God would prefer to set natural processes in motion to create and dry up flood, as opposed to intervening multiple times to create and remove floodwaters. Natural events will leave traces that can be identified. If the entire equence of events were a succession of miracles, the physical record would ecome impossible for finite man to interpret. This seems contrary to what we derstand of God. Our faith in Him is not expected to be blind, but based on evidence. Thus, when we read of a flood, we should naturally expect to find evidence consistent with it.

At this point it is important to understand that we do not believe the biblical account of the flood is true because we can prove it scientifically. Rather, we believe the biblical account because it is God's word. He was there, He caused the flood, and He caused the story to be recorded in Scripture. That story is not a comprehensive account of what happened, but an eyewitness account (even though we don't know how that witness was received by the author of Genesis). It provides hints, clues, a framework into which to fit our investigations.

What Does Not Need to be Explained:
While it is important to account for many lines of evidence, there are certain issues the model does not need to explain. By way of illustration, numerous critics have argued that the ark could not have carried enough food for all the animals for a year. Such a naturalistic criticism fails when we recognize that the Bible includes at least two examples of miraculous multiplication of food (1 Kgs IT9-16, Matt 14:17-20) that can serve as a model for feeding the animals. The ark is clearly a miraculous singularity (Gen 7:8ff), and all elements of it may properly be attributed to the miracle without harm to the model in general.

It is similarly unnecessary and perhaps even unwise for the model to address lines of evidence affecting only localized geographic areas. The fossilized forests of Yellowstone may very well be evidence for the fact of the flood, but they add little to the understanding of global mechanisms, and as such are better left for papers with a more detailed geographic focus. (12)

Certain bodies of data, such as radiometric dating, have been thought to contradict the young age of life on earth that is an intrinsic part of the biblical record. Qualified commentators have shown that these conclusions are not as secure as long-ages advocates claim." Therefore, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to deal with them here, except as they directly impact on the global flood model.

We should also be aware that for this paradigm to be a valid statement of a scientific theory, it should be falsifiable. That is, it should provide the framework for scientific predictions that can be tested and possibly proven to be incorrect. If the theory fails when tested, then the theory, in whole or part, is incorrect and must be discarded or replaced by a more correct theory.

It is not necessary for this paradigm to be completely correct in order to be useful. Many scientific theories of the past have been useful, providing means for assembling testable constructs. As new information became available, these theories have been discarded in favor of more correct or even contradictory schemata. This paradigm's value will be determined by how well it correlates present data and serves to direct investigation that reveals new information.

Pre-Flood Conditions
Seasons: In Eden, we are presented with a Paradise that is unequaled except in the promises of the Kingdom. Adam and Eve were comfortable without clothes. After the fall they were clothed because of nakedness (Gen 3:21), allowing us to infer that clothes were not yet needed for protection or thermal stability. Such comfort requires that there be very little temperature change either from month to month or from night to day." Similarly, there should be little wind, because wind would cause chill and discomfort.' (16)

The human diet in Eden was recorded to be grains and fruits (Gen 1:29-30). There is no hint of these being "in their season," as is suggested later (Gen 8:22). This allows us to reasonably infer that the fruiting of food plants in Eden continued year-round, unlike modem plants that predominantly bear seasonally. Temperate thermal stability and year-round fruiting suggest that the pre-flood world had no seasons. This would have only been possible with a near-vertical axis of rotation of the earth, so that days and nights were of near-equal length year round.

Some would take the text of the flood story itself as strongly hinting that seasons began after the flood. When Noah left the ark, God told him that 'seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter" would not cease thereafter (Gen 8:22). While this inference may in fact be true, we must be cautious in taking this passage that far, because the same verse says that "day and night" would not cease. If this text implies new seasons, then it could also imply new days and nights, something which we know to be incorrect from the story of creation (cf Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Therefore we must rest this conclusion on other data."

Weather and Geography:
Extrapolation of modern weather forces to Eden is problematic, as will soon become evident. The daily presence of mist that watered the ground suggests a first approximation of the conditions present in the pre-flood world. Air is capable of holding less water when cool than when warm. Under normal conditions, the atmosphere cools 5.6 degrees Fahrenheit per thousand feet of elevation change If the ground level temperature is 10* F above the dew point (the temperature at which humidity exceeds the ability of air to hold water), then clouds will form at 1,786 feet above ground level (AGL).

When the temperature in Eden cooled at night to the dew point, mist or fog would form. If Eden were the highest point on earth, then lower elevations would be expected to not have dew unless Eden were cooler than the dew point. How much cooler Eden must be would appear to be dependent on the elevation of Eden above sea level.

If Eden was 4,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL), then the night temperature in Eden would need to be 22.4* F below the dew point in order for the coastline to have dew if weather forces functioned as they do today. But this would leave us with Eden near the base of clouds all the time, a situation unlike what would normally be expected of a paradise. If we place the dew point 11.2* F cooler than in Eden in the day, so that clouds begin forming at 2,000 feet AGL (6,000 feet MSL) then we have a 33.6* F day/night temperature variation. But if this were the case, we would find this temperature swing to be beyond human normothermic limits without protective clothing. This suggests a highest likely elevation for Eden below 2,000 feet MSL.

Genesis 2:6 describes a "mist (that rose) from the earth" over "the whole surface of the ground." This would be described today as ground fog..Ground fog persists only in still air, since even small amounts of wind will cause it to dissipate. Therefore the night air in Eden was relatively still.

Another conclusion may be drawn from this seemingly insignificant datum. There were no substantial high mountains in the ante-diluvian world. We say this for two reasons. First, if the general nature of weather in Eden were similar to modem times, the humidity would cause a high mountain to be constantly shrouded in cloud. Such a feature seems out of place in the narrative as given Also, high mountains create weather. Air moving against mountains is Iifted and cooled, resulting in clouds and precipitation. This creates complex airflow that are incompatible with the calm climate of Eden.

Second, Scripture commonly describes the abode of God on earth as Mount Zion. This figurative language suggests that, at least in the theological sense this is the highest point on earth. Eden was the original home of God on earth where he visited with Adam and Eve and where the Tree of Life was located (Gen 3:22). God "shakonned" the angel at the gate of the Garden (Gen 3:24) using the same Hebrew root that describes the glory of God in the Most Holy Place of the tabernacle. When we add the fact that a river flowed out of Eden becoming four which flowed to four major geographic areas (Gen 2:10-14), have a physical suggestion that Eden was the highest point of the earth . ' Based on the physical constraints already discovered about the elevation of Eden, strongly suggests that no substantial high terrain existed before the flood.

When we consider the water requirement for the flood, the possible elevation of Eden lowers considerably. Every hundred-foot increase in elev would require a hundred-foot increase in the floodwaters. This depth convert. 3.8 million cubic miles of water, when spread over the earth's surface. Such large water requirement militates against ante-diluvian high ground.

The river suggests the presence of a feature that will become important later: a large subterranean aquifer. Most rivers have their origin in higher elevation water stores, such as rain runoff or snowmelt. With no such sources available the river of Eden must have begun at an artesian spring fed by other sources. Water from the surface would percolate down to warmer depths, the heat of those depths would drive the water back to the surface. Just as underground plumbing in Yellowstone and Iceland forces hot water to surface, underground plumbing could readily have been arranged to provide for hydrologic cycle with steady flow and continuous recirculation.

The "Vapor Barrier":
The difficulty of reconciling modern weather forces
with the climatological conditions in Eden leads us to consider a more potent climatological thesis. Gen 1:6-7 describes the separation of the "waters below the expanse" ("firmament' KJV) from the "waters above the expanse." Dillow and others have suggested that this implies an invisible "vapor barrie?' at high altitude which later provided the water for the flood. If the vapor barrier were clear, however, as proposed by Dillow, 'This would imply a significant potential for global circulation ... If strong global circulations exist, it is likely that strong winds and storms would also exist. Some have argued that such a vapor barrier is impossible due to physical instability. Vardiiman and Bousselot have shown that if the vapor barrier contained enough water to contribute significantly to the flood, it would cause surface temperatures above boiling and eliminate all life on earth . They did, however, find that if a high cirrus cloud cover were added, the temperature would moderate. They note further that, "As the cloud layer thickens it becomes opaque to the solar radiation and the cloud layer becomes the heating source for the atmosphere and the surface below, rather than the surface of the earth. Because the longwave radiation is trapped between two layers in equilibrium, the cloud and the earth's surface reach equilibrium and the temperature in between becomes isothermal..”

A high cloud cover could provide a temperature inversion in which no cooling occurs as elevation increases. Vardiman notes that "In the pre-flood atmosphere the inversion would have been very strong and the pole-to-equator temperature difference would have been very small, resulting in light winds, no storms, and no rain!” This is exactly the situation found on the planet Venus, where a permanent cloud cover is present with very stable temperatures below the clouds pole-to-pole, and virtually no wind. Above the clouds conditions vary wildly from day to night with high winds and large temperature variations.

Such a visible cloud layer makes more sense to us biblically and physically than a clear vapor barrier. Separating the "waters below" from the "waters above" suggests that "waters above" could be directly observed, and most likely would be seen as clouds. Birds flew in the "expanse," indicating that it was the atmosphere (Gen 1:20).

Clouds do not remain clouds in the modem world. They form, cause rain, and dissipate. This is a result of two forces acting on the earth. First, the sun warms the earth unevenly. Sunlight striking clouds is partially reflected away into space and does not contribute to surface warming as much as sunlight directly radiating the surface. Differential heating leads to vertical movement of air. If the air is humid, as it rises clouds form and then rain falls, causing strong downward movement of the air. In the most violent form of this we see thunderstorms with cloud tops as high as 60,000 feet containing vertical currents approaching one hundred miles per hour. Such action creates a strong vertical mixing of the atmosphere. Differential heating also occurs as we move from the equator to the poles or at high elevations. Sunlight reaching the surface at the poles must travel through a greater amount of air than at the equator. This leads to reduced surface warming at the poles. Cool air will tend to sink at the poles and flow toward the equator, where the air is warmer in patterns determined by Coriolis forces. High elevation also reduces the amount of atmosphere through which sunlight must travel, leading to increased surface heating. The absence of high terrain in the pre-flood world would limit this effect.

The second force that creates weather is orographic lifting. Air moving against rising terrain cools as it rises, precipitating water leading to rain and vertical mixing. Air moving over orographic features also creates a downward flow on the lee side of the high ground, again yielding vertical mixing. Differential heating and orographic features are responsible for all weather on earth.

If all terrain were low, there would be no substantial orographic features to contribute to weather. A world wide cloud cover would prevent direct sunlight from reaching the surface. This would eliminate direct surface heating, which would otherwise lead to vertical mixing of the atmosphere. Without such heating, there would be no force acting to produce rain by lifting moist air to altitudes where its temperature would fall below the dew point. And without rain, there would be none of its associated vertical mixing to break up the cloud cover. Such weather stability would be required for the climate to be acceptable for unclothed people year round.

A high cloud layer introduces an additional feature of stability. Night/day temperature variation is caused in large measure by daytime heating and nighttime radiation of that heat back into space. But the cloud cover would limit the daytime heating by as much as 50%. At night it would reduce the radiation of heat away by as much as 86%, since the radiation would be reflected back down at night, trapping the thermal energy. There would be some day/night variation, but it would be markedly less than we see today.

Summary of Proposed Ante-Diluvian Conditions:
We propose that the pre-flood world was very unlike our present earth. It had a single continent, located generally around the equator, and a single ocean. There was little high ground, and Eden was most likely the highest point. There were no volcanoes. A large aquifer fed an artesian source for the river flowing from Eden that divided to flow to the four corners of the earth. The earth's axis of rotation was normal to the plane of the ecliptic.

The climate was maintained in a constantly temperate and nearly windless condition by a temperature inversion made possible by a high altitude cloud cover. This cloud cover prevented direct observation of the sun and moon, and completely obscured the stars. There was no force to promote the vertical mixing which is characteristic of modem weather. This absence of vertical mixing had the secondary benefit of reduced levels of 14C in the biosphere. A thick ozone layer prevented harmful effects from solar UV radiation.

[rogero]

Lion,

Is post #59 your own opus or did you derive it from some other source?

Talk about a "just so" story! Why don't we see evidence of any these phenomena? Did a deceiving trickster god remove all the evidence and leave instead an appearance of non-existent history? Why would such a god be worthy of worship?

R

[Darth Executor]

Can somebody summarize the drivel I've missed because there's no way I'm reading all that.

[grmorton]

Point of curiousity. You refer here to your argument that a global flood couldn't have deposited the geologic column because all through the column we find features that couldn't be created during a flood. E.g., dessication cracks, bird tracks (including lines of peck marks), multiple layers of burrows (each of which requires time to create), etc.

Are these features found only at or near the surface? Or are they also found at significant depths below the present surface?

I'm sure it's obvious where I'm going with this. In a Flood geology paradigm, the phrase "all through the geologic column" is meaningless. It doesn't matter that we've decided to call a layer of rock Paleogene, or Triassic, or Devonian, etc.--the layers at the surface were either the last laid down in the Flood, deposited since the Flood, or exposed through erosion since the Flood, whatever we call them. If the features in question are found only at or near the surface, this argument against Flood deposition seems to lose force.

I realize this wouldn't explain underground "fossil" riverbeds.


Good question. They are found buried deeply and near the surface. Tracks have been found deep in coal mines, and once in a blue moon, in an oil well core (one must remember that an oil well core samples only a 6-8 inch circular hole). A meteorite was once found in an oil well core. But burrows are found all the time, thousands of feet deep. Here is one found thousands of feet below the water surface in the NOrth Sea. It is Jurassic in age and is from Janice oil field.

[kuboes1831]

Can somebody summarize the drivel I've missed because there's no way I'm reading all that.

You must be as thick as I am.

[grmorton]

This is an additional answer to Jugulum's question. HEre is a core from the North Slope. It has lots of burrows and is from 8500 feet down. Clearly burrowing occurs from the surface to the bottom. The red arrows mark the burrows

[Jugulum]

Good question. They are found buried deeply and near the surface. Tracks have been found deep in coal mines, and once in a blue moon, in an oil well core (one must remember that an oil well core samples only a 6-8 inch circular hole). A meteorite was once found in an oil well core. But burrows are found all the time, thousands of feet deep. Here is one found thousands of feet below the water surface in the NOrth Sea. It is Jurassic in age and is from Janice oil field.
Idle question: Was the meteorite found in some sort of crater-type feature? Or might it have been transported and deposited along with the sediment?

Anyway, thanks for the answer.

[grmorton]

Idle question: Was the meteorite found in some sort of crater-type feature? Or might it have been transported and deposited along with the sediment?

Anyway, thanks for the answer.


Not to my knowledge. I used to work Zapata County years ago. This was probably in the Wilcox formation. Anyway, here is the reference:


"Of even more importance is a previously unpublished report that an iron meteorite was found at a sub-surface depth of 1,525 ft. in an oil well drilled in Zapata County, Texas. The circumstances of the find have been described by M. Williams and forwarded in a personal letter dated September 14, 1956, by E. A. Wendlandt, chief geologist of the Humble Oil and Refining Company.
"During the drilling of the well in 1930 an extremely hard object was struck at a depth of 1,525 ft. and in sediments of almost certainly Eocene age. This object was recovered and found to be a piece of metal about the size of a man's fist. An approximate analysis of a 0.4-gm. sample by M. Williams indicated about 82 percent iron, 5-10 per cent nickel and traces of phosphorus, carbon and silicon. Two surfaces were polished and on etching Widmanstatten figures were quite distinctive. It would seem almost certain that the metal fragment was an octahedrite iron meteorite, but unfortunately the specimen has since been lost. There does not seem to be any reason to doubt the authenticity of the find, and the fact that the meteorite was embedded in Eocene sediments at a considerable depth from the surface could only mean that the meteorite fell in Eocene sediments at a considerable depth from the surface could only mean that the meteorite fell in Eocene times.
"Recent determinations of 'cosmic-ray ages' of certain meteorites indicate that they were broken from their parent bodies about 10 9 years ago. In these circumstances meteorites have probably been available to fall on the Earth since at least early Palaeozoic times. However, most meteorites are unstable on the Earth's strongly oxidizing surface, so that it would be most unlikely that they would be preserved in any readily recognizable form in sediments older than Tertiary. Since cosmic spherules are already largely fused and oxidized, they might be expected to be more stable and perhaps preserved in sediments considerably older than Tertiary."

Oh yeah, Humble Oil and Refining, is now called ExxonMobil.

[brett]

I agree with you that they are not in the text, however you are quite wrong if you think that YECs haven't tried to see them in the text.

In the case of the canopy, YECs have often said that it was in the text. Gen 1:6-7. "And god made the exanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse." See Jody Dilliow, "The Waters Above, p. 43ff

You are wrong.

I am not wrong. :lol: Some YECs have speculated that the waters above was a water canopy. They may be right. How is this any different from you speculating that the earth bringing forth living creatures is evolution?


Walter Brown says that the fountains of the deep were caverns with water in them prior to the flood. He sees them being in the text that way.

Interesting. He may be right! I’m not sure what you think these arguments are proving.


I believe I just documented what I charged. Please have the honor to withdraw the above.

You documented exactly what I said. YECs have theories about how God’s miracles may have played out. :huh:


Consider What Baumgardner is actually doing here:

......

Why does God have to do what Baumgardner suggests?

He doesn’t. Why does God have to do what GM says?


And Humphreys had God changing two constants, essentially telling God what miracle he must perform to cause the decay rates to change:

Now Humphreys I’m very familiar with. He was very careful in his book Starlight and Time to point out that his theory was just a hypothesis. He even admitted that many years dow the road his theory might have to be abandoned. A very humble man. I don’t see why you can’t give him more respect.


NO, what I am saying is that if God did it miraculously in the way YECs say He did it, we should find observational evidence X,Y, and Z in the the world. Since we don't find X, Y or Z to be true, then the hypothesis that God did it miracously is false.

This seems to contradict what many scientists have told me, namely that science can neither verify nor falsify a miracle—especially when you consider that many details of the Genesis miracles are not revealed. We know a flood came but don’t no the mechanisms God used to start it nor sustain it. Perhaps it was a series of miracles, perhaps it was just one to get the ball rolling. That would seem very hard to discern looking at the evidence through naturalistic glasses.


If God did it miraculously but made it look as if there were no flood (like footprints and trails on nearly every level of the geologic column) then God is lying to us.

Oh boy! That dog just doesn’t hunt anymore. If one is fooled because he approaches evidence with wrong presuppositions, it isn’t God’s fault.

Not if I see the Bible teaching a naturalistic origin of life.

So now naturalism is the plain reading of Genesis 1.

True, science can't verify miracles, but to explain the flood, everything, and I mean absolutely everything must be a miracle and then God must make it look like there was no miracle. IN a global flood all the dead animals should be on the very bottom of the geologic column. But they aren't.

I’m no scientist but is seems you’re claiming to know a lot about miraculous global floods. Perhaps in a worldwide natural flood you would be correct (perhaps). But I don’t think worldwide floods happen naturally. Therefore, it’s logical to assume this is a flood like no one's ever seen before.


It is arrogant because you all act like your hypotheses have been proven and that anyone who doesn't share your wild view of the world shouldn't be treated as a christian.

Ad Hom. You know as well as I do these are false accusations. It’s ironic from someone as abrasive as you.


In Genesis 2-11, there is no demonstrable miracle.

Demonstrable miracle? Hmmm. :huh:


It doesn't say God created those plants like a magician pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Nor does it say they evolved from single cell organisms. What it does say is plants were formed in one day. And it’s the narrator that says it and gives the time frame.


Well, if I am at least I am trying to fit the observational data with the Scriptural data. You simply say, ignore the observational data IF it contradicts me, and believe my interpretation of the Bible. YOu have a one way filter. If the science supports you you accept it, if it doesn't you reject it. That is intellectually dishonest.

The problem is you’re tying to fit wrong presuppositions with the Scriptural data. You’re refusing to let the scriptural date form your presuppositions. Instead you’re letting naturalistic atheistic philosophies form them. I’m looking at the text and allowing it to form my presuppositions. I see three major worldwide miracles that would seem to make naturalistic investigation of our world very difficult for naturalists.


THAT IS EVOLUTION! Do you think any evolutionist DOESN'T believe that all creatures were created from the elements on earth? Good grief how blind you are.

That animals are formed from the elements of the earth is compatible with creation and evolution. It’s going to take a lot more then that to read evolution into Genesis.


And you don't dogmatically assert that the earth is young and that evolution didn't happen? :lmbo: Do you know the meaning of dogmatism? It comes from the root dogma--which is a firm religious belief. Science isn't dogmatic. It changes when new evidence comes in. YECS don't.

You’re right science isn’t dogmatic. I never said it was. Glen Morton is dogmatic. Your presuppositions are not derived from science, they are assumed before you approach the evidence. And you're dogmatic about them.


Soc didn't every say anything about science worth listening to. He just engaged in ad hominems.

You truly remind me of David with he was confronted by Nathan.


No, actually I don't demand that God did everything naturalistically. I believe in miracles. I believe I have experienced one once in my life. But I know that I can't tell God what miracle to do, and I know that some miracles which people claim happened, didn't actually happen. You must be a very gullible fellow to believe all the nonsense you have been taught by your YEC teachers. I bet you didn't spend more than a half an hour doubting anything they said to you.

You believe naturalistic theories have proven the miracles in Genesis didn’t happen. Even though you’ve admitted science cannot falsify miracles. Therefore (as you’ve admitted) you’re trying to harmonize the text with naturalistic theories. One of us is definitely naive.

[grmorton]

I am not wrong. :lol: Some YECs have speculated that the waters above was a water canopy. They may be right. How is this any different from you speculating that the earth bringing forth living creatures is evolution?

Given that you said categorically in post 50 " No YEC has ever said these things were in the text."

And then I cited several cases where YECs DID try to say these things were in the text, you ARE wrong whether you have the honor to admit it or not.



Interesting. He may be right! I’m not sure what you think these arguments are proving.

Two things. You say people don't say things are in the text then you say Walter is right. YOu can't have it both ways.

Secondly, his arguments are perfectly ridiculous. Seismic waves come in two forms, compressional and shear. In compressional waves the particles of a material are compressed (or moved) in the direction of motion of the wave. IN shear waves, the particles move perpendicular to the direction of the waves motion. Shear waves, don't travel through liquids, compressional waves do.

Now, if Walter Brown's crazy idea is correct, then the continents used to float on a cushion of water. If the collapse occurred one would NOT expect that every scrap of water drained out of these subterranean caverns. We should find some small areas where the water still existed. (after all nothing works 100% )so we should still find some areas where the near surface would not transmit shear waves. We find none of them. Walter Brown must be smoking funny weed.



You documented exactly what I said. YECs have theories about how God’s miracles may have played out. :huh:

I repeat what you claimed which is now demonstrably false: " No YEC has ever said these things were in the text."

You are wrong but don't have the grace to admit it.



He doesn’t. Why does God have to do what GM says?

It isn't what I say, it is what the evidence says God did. Just like we can use forensics to know what a murderer did, we can use historical science to find out what happened in the past.



Now Humphreys I’m very familiar with. He was very careful in his book Starlight and Time to point out that his theory was just a hypothesis. He even admitted that many years dow the road his theory might have to be abandoned. A very humble man. I don’t see why you can’t give him more respect.

BEcause he teaches nonsense, false nonsence and when corrected he continues to teach the false nonsense. Jon Byl, a creationist, ripped his theory to shreds in the creation REsearch Soc. Quarterly, but of course, since most of you all don't know diddly about geology, much less relativity, none of you understand the force of Jon Byl's argument.



This seems to contradict what many scientists have told me, namely that science can neither verify nor falsify a miracle—especially when you consider that many details of the Genesis miracles are not revealed. We know a flood came but don’t no the mechanisms God used to start it nor sustain it. Perhaps it was a series of miracles, perhaps it was just one to get the ball rolling. That would seem very hard to discern looking at the evidence through naturalistic glasses.

Finding the evidence of x doesn't mean that one has verified that X occurred miraculously. It only shows that something happened.



Oh boy! That dog just doesn’t hunt anymore. If one is fooled because he approaches evidence with wrong presuppositions, it isn’t God’s fault.

It isn't presuppositions that drive one to the old earth view. I had presuppositions towards YEC. I wanted YEC to be true. The problem was that I could never explain anything with YEC. Explain the data on my page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm and I will become a YEC again. The problem is that you guys constantly avoid explaining data. Indeed, you avoid the data altogether.




So now naturalism is the plain reading of Genesis 1.

God said: 'Earth, bring forth life.' The earth did the actual bringing forth. Why can't you see what the plain reading is?



I’m no scientist

Which is why your claims about science and the flood are worthless. YOu know nothing about it yet you claim that you know what the answer is. Kind of like me knowing what to do about a brain tumor.

but is seems you’re claiming to know a lot about miraculous global floods. [ Perhaps in a worldwide natural flood you would be correct (perhaps). But I don’t think worldwide floods happen naturally. Therefore, it’s logical to assume this is a flood like no one's ever seen before.

Fine, if you want it all to be miraculous, then say so and STOP TALKING ABOUT HOW SCIENCE SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION. It can't both be miraculous AND science support your position.



Ad Hom. You know as well as I do these are false accusations. It’s ironic from someone as abrasive as you.

You don't understand what an ad hom is. If I say you are wrong because you are YEC, that is an ad hom. If I say you behave badly towards other Christians who are not YEC, then that is statement of fact. I have not stated that this affects the truth or falsity of your argument for YEC.

I really wish people like you would actually learn things before you try to use the terms you are unfamiliar with.

I had written: It doesn't say God created those plants like a magician pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Brett replied:


Nor does it say they evolved from single cell organisms. What it does say is plants were formed in one day. And it’s the narrator that says it and gives the time frame.

Then you admit that one can see mediated creation in the Scripture. Thank you.



The problem is you’re tying to fit wrong presuppositions with the Scriptural data. You’re refusing to let the scriptural date form your presuppositions. Instead you’re letting naturalistic atheistic philosophies form them. I’m looking at the text and allowing it to form my presuppositions. I see three major worldwide miracles that would seem to make naturalistic investigation of our world very difficult for naturalists.

That is laughable. Most atheists here would say that I am trying to use too much of the Bible in my views.



That animals are formed from the elements of the earth is compatible with creation and evolution. It’s going to take a lot more then that to read evolution into Genesis.

OK, so you don't beleive the Bible, lots of people don't. But it woiuld be nice if you would cease telling people to beleive what you yourself don't believe.



You’re right science isn’t dogmatic. I never said it was. Glen Morton is dogmatic.

When someone says nonsense about science, it is the right thing to do to be adamant that they are wrong.

Your presuppositions are not derived from science, they are assumed before you approach the evidence. And you're dogmatic about them.

You know you guys always seem to think that science is like philosophy--change the presupposition and the data will change. That simply isn't true. REgardless of what one's beleif system is, the speed of light can be measured to be 186,000 miles per second.



You truly remind me of David with he was confronted by Nathan.

What arrogance on your part to equate your self with someone as honest as Nathan.



You believe naturalistic theories have proven the miracles in Genesis didn’t happen.

No, I believe that observation has shown that what YOU YECS say happened in Genesis didn't happen. Only by saying your word is equivalent to THE WORD, can you say what you did. You are saying that you are equal to God--I think that is the sin of Adam.

Even though you’ve admitted science cannot falsify miracles. Therefore (as you’ve admitted) you’re trying to harmonize the text with naturalistic theories. One of us is definitely naive.

On this last sentence, we agree.

[Jugulum]

Given that you said categorically in post 50 " No YEC has ever said these things were in the text."

And then I cited several cases where YECs DID try to say these things were in the text, you ARE wrong whether you have the honor to admit it or not.

...

Two things. You say people don't say things are in the text then you say Walter is right. YOu can't have it both ways.
I think the two of you are using different meanings of "in the text". I think brett is saying that YECs don't insist the text must refer to those things, but that they can be read into it. But, says brett, YECs don't insist, "These hypotheses must be true because the Bible explicitly says it is." (He might even place "earth bring forth = evolution" on the same footing were he not persuaded the creation took 6 days.)

You, on the other hand, seem to be taking "in the text" to mean "is seen as an allowable interpretation".

It isn't presuppositions that drive one to the old earth view. I had presuppositions towards YEC. I wanted YEC to be true. The problem was that I could never explain anything with YEC. Explain the data on my page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm and I will become a YEC again. The problem is that you guys constantly avoid explaining data. Indeed, you avoid the data altogether.
Note for brett: By this Glenn means, explain that data as being compatible with a global flood without appealing to random miracles of the "God made the fossils in the rocks to test us" sort. For instance, he argues that there are features all the way through the rocks that could not be there if the layers were all laid down in a flood. Obviously, God could form those features miraculously, but that seems an odd thing to do. To satisfy Glenn, you would have to explain it either as a completely natural feature, compatible with rising floodwaters, or a feature whose formation involved a non-explicitly-deceptive miracle.

Example: Animal tracks are there because God was protecting those animals against the floodwaters--like parting the Red Sea. The animals kept moving, and after they'd moved on, God let the floodwaters lay down the next sedimentary layer. That's a miracle that would explain things, but God's proposed motivation doesn't make sense--the Flood eventually covered everything, so they'd die then anyway. And there's no indication of any such miracle in the text.

[grmorton]

I think the two of you are using different meanings of "in the text". I think brett is saying that YECs don't insist the text must refer to those things, but that they can be read into it. But, says brett, YECs don't insist, "These hypotheses must be true because the Bible explicitly says it is." (He might even place "earth bring forth = evolution" on the same footing were he not persuaded the creation took 6 days.)

You, on the other hand, seem to be taking "in the text" to mean "is seen as an allowable interpretation".

No, I think I am saying that these guys are saying that 'in the text' means that it is what God was saying with the text.


Note for brett: By this Glenn means, explain that data as being compatible with a global flood without appealing to random miracles of the "God made the fossils in the rocks to test us" sort. For instance, he argues that there are features all the way through the rocks that could not be there if the layers were all laid down in a flood. Obviously, God could form those features miraculously, but that seems an odd thing to do. To satisfy Glenn, you would have to explain it either as a completely natural feature, compatible with rising floodwaters, or a feature whose formation involved a non-explicitly-deceptive miracle.



Example: Animal tracks are there because God was protecting those animals against the floodwaters--like parting the Red Sea. The animals kept moving, and after they'd moved on, God let the floodwaters lay down the next sedimentary layer. That's a miracle that would explain things, but God's proposed motivation doesn't make sense--the Flood eventually covered everything, so they'd die then anyway. And there's no indication of any such miracle in the text.

I think you captured this quite well.

[Jugulum]

No, I think I am saying that these guys are saying that 'in the text' means that it is what God was saying with the text.
Ah. In that case, I think you haven't supported yourself very well. (Mind you, I don't doubt that at least some YECs have been persuaded their particular hypotheses were actually what God was saying with the text.)

You quoted YECs in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1012495&postcount=56). Specifically:

You refer to Jody Dilliow on Canopy theory, but don't quote her to show she actually said or implied something like, "If you don't accept the canopy, you're disbelieving the text."
You also refer to Walter Brown without quoting him.
You quote Russel Humphreys. He says things like, "brings to mind the decay of nuclei", and "From all this, I surmise". That doesn't strike me as clearly dogmatic. AFAICS, his language does not imply he thinks the text demands his ideas on accelerated nuclear decay.
You quote John Whitcomb. Your argument's a bit stronger here--he does say the Flood text requires allowing for supernatural involvement in the formation of ocean basins and mountain ranges. But it's not clear what he's saying the text says about them.
You quote John Baumgardner. I think your question ("Why does God have to do what Baumgardner suggests?") mischaracterizes him. He starts with, "It is the author's suspicion that God..." That seems sufficiently tentative.
You quote Humphreys again, but I don't see how this second quotation supports your point.
In contrast, IIRC you've said that Genesis 1 actually teaches evolution with the phrase "let the earth bring forth", as opposed to saying Genesis 1 harmonizes well with evolution in that phrase. You can make an argument for the latter, but the former seems blatantly overly-optimistic on your part.

I think you captured this quite well.
Oh, good. I always get a bit nervous when I say something like, "this is what he means." :smile:

[grmorton]

Ah. In that case, I think you haven't supported yourself very well. (Mind you, I don't doubt that at least some YECs have been persuaded their particular hypotheses were actually what God was saying with the text.)

Then since you have no doubt that my main point is correct but you think my documentation was ineffectual, why don't you support it with your best documentation? Seems to me that you are kind of nitpicking my style or argument while acknowledging its basic correctness.

You quoted YECs in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1012495&postcount=56). Specifically:

You refer to Jody Dilliow on Canopy theory, but don't quote her to show she actually said or implied something like, "If you don't accept the canopy, you're disbelieving the text."

First, off, Jody is a guy whom I have known for over 25 years. I have had many many discussions with him some of which were quite heated. I know the guy personally and know what he was meaning when he said that. I suspect you would agree with this as a supportive case if you knew him personally.

You also refer to Walter Brown without quoting him.

I didn't feel I needed to. He holds that the fountains of the deep are these caverns full of water.

[cite=After 40 days and 40 nights, the “geshem rain” stopped (Genesis 7:12). However, the flood water rose until the 150th day, when it covered all preflood mountains (Genesis 7:19–24). After 40 days, the layer of water rising on earth blanketed and suppressed the jetting of the fountains of the great deep. Nevertheless, high-pressure subterranean water continued to gush out and add to the rising flood waters until the 150th day. On that day, the fountains were closed (Genesis 8:2) by the hydroplates settling onto the floor of the subterranean water chamber, pinching shut the outward-flowing water. [See pages 98–125 for the scientific details supporting this explanation.][/quote]

From http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ39.html#wp1147679


[/quote]*]You quote Russel Humphreys. He says things like, "brings to mind the decay of nuclei", and "From all this, I surmise". That doesn't strike me as clearly dogmatic. AFAICS, his language does not imply he thinks the text demands his ideas on accelerated nuclear decay. [/quote]

Dogmatic is not the issue. The issue is do YECs find these things in the text. The issue is not whether or not the YECs find the things dogmatically in the text. Why do you try to change the issue?


[/quote] You quote John Whitcomb. Your argument's a bit stronger here--he does say the Flood text requires allowing for supernatural involvement in the formation of ocean basins and mountain ranges. But it's not clear what he's saying the text says about them.
You quote John Baumgardner. I think your question ("Why does God have to do what Baumgardner suggests?") mischaracterizes him. He starts with, "It is the author's suspicion that God..." That seems sufficiently tentative. [/quote]

Once again, the isssue is not whether we can find this dogmatically but can we find this behavior.

You quote Humphreys again, but I don't see how this second quotation supports your point.
In contrast, IIRC you've said that Genesis 1 actually teaches evolution with the phrase "let the earth bring forth", as opposed to saying Genesis 1 harmonizes well with evolution in that phrase. You can make an argument for the latter, but the former seems blatantly overly-optimistic on your part.

I will accept that criticism. You are correct, Genesis does state things in a way that is completely compatible with evolution. Which of course, means that YECs can't claim that the Bible rules evolution out.

[Jugulum]

Then since you have no doubt that my main point is correct but you think my documentation was ineffectual, why don't you support it with your best documentation? Seems to me that you are kind of nitpicking my style or argument while acknowledging its basic correctness.
I didn't quote documentation of my own because I don't have any. The reason I don't doubt it is that it seems almost inevitable that some people will see their ideas as being explicitly taught by the text when they're actually at best implied or allowed.

I spoke up because I didn't think you'd provided brett with enough to make him see your point. That's not a nitpick. If you were trying to prove quantum chromodynamics to someone without mentioning any accelerator experiments, I'd do the same.

Mind you, your point can only convince someone to be doubly careful and cautious in exegesis. It should make people look hard at the text without prejudice, to see what it actually says about what God did. If a YEC really is telling God what to do, it's unfortunate, but recognizing that doesn't tell us who's right.

First, off, Jody is a guy whom I have known for over 25 years. I have had many many discussions with him some of which were quite heated. I know the guy personally and know what he was meaning when he said that. I suspect you would agree with this as a supportive case if you knew him personally.
Yes, with that testimony, this example is more persuasive. Someone would have to suspect you of either intentional dishonesty or interpretational incompetence to doubt that evidence. But then, I bet brett does so. Without a quote, it's just your word.

I didn't feel I needed to. He holds that the fountains of the deep are these caverns full of water.
It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to convince your opponent, I think you did need to. If you're doing something else, no, you didn't need to.

In this case, exact words are what you need to convince a skeptic.

After 40 days and 40 nights, the “geshem rain” stopped (Genesis 7:12). However, the flood water rose until the 150th day, when it covered all preflood mountains (Genesis 7:19–24). After 40 days, the layer of water rising on earth blanketed and suppressed the jetting of the fountains of the great deep. Nevertheless, high-pressure subterranean water continued to gush out and add to the rising flood waters until the 150th day. On that day, the fountains were closed (Genesis 8:2) by the hydroplates settling onto the floor of the subterranean water chamber, pinching shut the outward-flowing water. [See pages 98–125 for the scientific details supporting this explanation.]
From http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ39.html#wp1147679
OK, I'd say that's a good example.

*]You quote Russel Humphreys. He says things like, "brings to mind the decay of nuclei", and "From all this, I surmise". That doesn't strike me as clearly dogmatic. AFAICS, his language does not imply he thinks the text demands his ideas on accelerated nuclear decay.
Dogmatic is not the issue. The issue is do YECs find these things in the text. The issue is not whether or not the YECs find the things dogmatically in the text.
I think we're getting lost in semantics. For me, "the text demands his ideas" is equivalent to "it is what God was saying with the text" is equivalent to "dogmatic". Part of Webster's definition of dogma (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dogma) is "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds". I thought that's precisely what we're talking about.

If someone only suggests a possible meaning without saying it must be the correct meaning, I don't know what you're criticizing them for. If they say "this is what God meant in the text" when the text is ambiguous, they're not suggesting--they're being dogmatic.

Why do you try to change the issue?
That is really annoying. Obviously, I didn't think I was. Why do you think everyone should bow to your assertions without good evidence?

(Please note the intended irony. I don't think you do, and it would be childish for me to suggest it simply because I think the evidence you originally provided was insufficient.)

I will accept that criticism. You are correct, Genesis does state things in a way that is completely compatible with evolution. Which of course, means that YECs can't claim that the Bible rules evolution out.OK...I actually said "in that phrase"--not the whole of Genesis. I was evaluating that small piece of your exegesis; I wasn't endorsing Days of Proclamation as textually viable. I don't discount the idea entirely, but neither am I persuaded on the matter.

Which is irrelevant here. I brought up that particular case to show the difference between the text teaching something and the text harmonizing with something. My views on other matters are immaterial.

[Thedonhopeless]

If there was a global flood on this planet, where did all the water go?

Well, the earth is mostly water, and it can easily cover the whole earth. The water now is deep, this is where the water came from and this is where the water went. From and to the depths of the ocean floor.

Looking at Genesis chapter one reveals clearly that water covered the whoel earth in length and depth.

Yes, water actually filled the whole earth because there was no sky.God then separated the sky from the water, THEN gatherd water fron the land! He didn't make the water disappear, He gathered it, condensed it.

This is irrefutable proof via scripture that water can and did cover every piece of land on the earth.

[rogero]

Well, the earth is mostly water, and it can easily cover the whole earth. The water now is deep, this is where the water came from and this is where the water went. From and to the depths of the ocean floor.

Looking at Genesis chapter one reveals clearly that water covered the whoel earth in length and depth.

Yes, water actually filled the whole earth because there was no sky.God then separated the sky from the water, THEN gatherd water fron the land! He didn't make the water disappear, He gathered it, condensed it.

This is irrefutable proof via scripture that water can and did cover every piece of land on the earth.

Can you reconcile this with what we know about the surface of the earth today, the amount of water on the earth (it covers 71% of Earth's surface -- is that what you mean by "the earth is mostly water"?) and the topographical highs and lows that we know to exist today that are apparently the result of density and buoyancy? Remember, son, there are three dimensions to Earth's surface.

BTW, you can't use as scientific proof of a clearly observed Earth phenomenon a narrow interpretation of a scriptural text. Doing such is an obscene violation of logical principles -- unless you're asserting that God intends for creation to be inaccessible to study by his cognitively-abled creatures. If that's the case, there's not much point in even thinking about worshipping such a cruel deceiver.

R

[Perry]

If that's the case, there's not much point in even thinking about worshipping such a cruel deceiver.

Careful there ole buddy. Yer gonna meet him soon.

[rogero]

Careful there ole buddy. Yer gonna meet him soon.

So, you do believe he's a cruel deceiver then? How sad! What a horrid picture of eternity for a Fundy like you --- either worshipping a cruel god or providing a perpetual celestial energy source for the Lake o' Fah™.

No, son, I'll stick with my God who I see manifest in Scripture through the love of Christ and who created a truly beautiful Cosmos that has integrity and thus yields (most?) of its secrets eventually to detailed and honest study.

Peace,

R

[Perry]

So, you do believe he's a cruel deceiver then? How sad! What a horrid picture of eternity for a Fundy like you --- either worshipping a cruel god or providing a perpetual celestial energy source for the Lake o' Fah™.

No, son, I'll stick with my God who I see manifest in Scripture through the love of Christ and who created a truly beautiful Cosmos that has integrity and thus yields (most?) of its secrets eventually to detailed and honest study.

Peace,

R

Well, Rdaddyo, I didn't say I thought he was a cruel deceiver now, did I? I was admonishing you to be careful, as you're the one who calls him that. Whenever someone refers to the God of the bible, that is. It's the God of the bible you have so much trouble with, after all. Rather than submit yourself to him, you've taken the liberation rout of inventing the Rojjeee Stuffed Animal Cuddly god, who only exists in your mind, but fits the bill for who Uncca Roj needs in his god. You "study" in such a way as to negate his righteous judgement.

[Perry]

Can you reconcile this with what we know about the surface of the earth today, the amount of water on the earth (it covers 71% of Earth's surface -- is that what you mean by "the earth is mostly water"?) and the topographical highs and lows that we know to exist today that are apparently the result of density and buoyancy? Remember, son, there are three dimensions to Earth's surface.

Well, before the continents drifted, more than 71% of Earth was covered with water, correct? According to the "scientific" artists' renderings, when they were all grouped together, some (cental America) were missing, and some (Africa) were smaller, which means the continents would have taken up less overall space.

Incidentally, I think I missed a major part of the Pangea theory until recently. Earth would have looked pretty unbalanced with all the land in one spot; I mean,a whole big ball with water all around it except for one land-lump. That was before I realized what you PHDs were trying to say-- now I understand, and it makes more sense. Back when land was a big lump, Earth was FLAT! The continents only began drifting as Flat Earth began evolving into Round Earth.

Thanks for your patience. Try to be more clear next time.

PS: I'm getting to where I can almost read Glenn's posts without the aid of ADD medication, which is good, as I can only buy the stuff illegally or steal it from poor little kids.

[grmorton]

Well, before the continents drifted, more than 71% of Earth was covered with water, correct? According to the "scientific" artists' renderings, when they were all grouped together, some (cental America) were missing, and some (Africa) were smaller, which means the continents would have taken up less overall space.

No, the continents took up the same space, the water level was higher. The water was higher because the mid-oceanic ridges were bigger which pushed the water up.

Incidentally, I think I missed a major part of the Pangea theory until recently. Earth would have looked pretty unbalanced with all the land in one spot; I mean,a whole big ball with water all around it except for one land-lump. That was before I realized what you PHDs were trying to say-- now I understand, and it makes more sense. Back when land was a big lump, Earth was FLAT! The continents only began drifting as Flat Earth began evolving into Round Earth.

No, there is a thing called isostasy. You should go look it up before you beleive nonsense.

PS: I'm getting to where I can almost read Glenn's posts without the aid of ADD medication, which is good, as I can only buy the stuff illegally or steal it from poor little kids.

Well that is the first step. Now if you would only start actually listening.

[rogero]

Well, Rdaddyo, I didn't say I thought he was a cruel deceiver now, did I? I was admonishing you to be careful, as you're the one who calls him that. Whenever someone refers to the God of the bible, that is. It's the God of the bible you have so much trouble with, after all. Rather than submit yourself to him, you've taken the liberation rout of inventing the Rojjeee Stuffed Animal Cuddly god, who only exists in your mind, but fits the bill for who Uncca Roj needs in his god. You "study" in such a way as to negate his righteous judgement.

Au contraire, mon Frere -- the god that you're implying in your elementary-level screed is in fact a cruel deceiving demiurge. I really hope that what you're speaking about God is out of ignorance than out of a well thought out faith. From all that I've read of yours, thankfully it appears that the former is closer to the truth.

[rogero]

Well, before the continents drifted, more than 71% of Earth was covered with water, correct? According to the "scientific" artists' renderings, when they were all grouped together, some (cental America) were missing, and some (Africa) were smaller, which means the continents would have taken up less overall space.

Incidentally, I think I missed a major part of the Pangea theory until recently. Earth would have looked pretty unbalanced with all the land in one spot; I mean,a whole big ball with water all around it except for one land-lump. That was before I realized what you PHDs were trying to say-- now I understand, and it makes more sense. Back when land was a big lump, Earth was FLAT! The continents only began drifting as Flat Earth began evolving into Round Earth.

Thanks for your patience. Try to be more clear next time.

PS: I'm getting to where I can almost read Glenn's posts without the aid of ADD medication, which is good, as I can only buy the stuff illegally or steal it from poor little kids.

A couple o' thangs for you to cogitate upon, Sonny ---

1) Pangaea existed for a relatively brief period about 200-250Ma. This is within the last 5% of Earth's history, and lasted for less than 1% of Earth's history.

2) As Glennn points out, there is the important concept of isostasy, which is basically a large-scale buoyancy concept. It's why a block of wood floats in a lake, but you don't. The block of wood not only floats, but sits at a particular level above the water surface. This Archimedes' Principle. Big chunks of material with a lower specific gravity "float" on big chunks of material with higher specific gravity -- whether liquid or not.

In particular, the continents are made basically of a rock called granite, which has a specific gravity of 2.7. The ocean basins are made basically of rock called basalt, which has a specific gravity of 3.3. Both of these sit on the mantle, which has a higher specific gravity than both.

The upshot is that, in order to obtain a stable state, the continents have to sit at a certain elevation (about 3000-4000 feet ASL?) and the oceanic crust has to sit a certain depth (12000 or so feet BSL). It would be extremely unlikely for a "flat" Earth that you propose to exist for several thousand years -- unless Adam and Seth and Enoch and Methusaleh and friends were accustomed to a great deal of earthquake activity.

Also, you have not considered the exceedingly immense amount of heat that would be released in an isostatic "readjustment" of the continental-oceanic crust to present elevations. Could have all been removed by a "miracle" --- this would be consistent with the cruel deceiving demiurge that you worship.

Also again -- I don't understand your problem with the consensus plate-tectonic explanation of the origin of the Himalayas. Your confused misunderstanding of this view makes no sense to me, and doesn't answer any questions from your POV.

To wit, how does one explain marine fossils in the Himalayas? You explain this by the Noahic Deluge. So then you have two choices, each of which causes a grave problem: Either 1) the Himalayas were at pretty much their current elevation at the time of the Flood, 2) the Himalayas were lower when the Flood occurred, then were uplifted to their present elevation (much more consistent with the geological structure we find in this mountain range.)

If you choose option 1, you have to explain where almost six miles of water came from. For example, a "vapor canopy" this thick would have a produced a pre-Flood surface barometric pressure of something like 1300 atmospheres -- a level at which nitrogen and oxygen would be toxic and would crush most terrestrial life out of existence.

If you choose option 2, your view is much more ridiculous than your childish caricature of modern science. In fact, you're a lot worse off, since you have to explain the heat released in all that tectonic activity and uplift in a short time period.

I would heartily recommend you studying some science before you embarass yourself and the average scientifically-illiterate Christian layman further. Truth is a beautiful thing, Perry -- learn to experience it!

Yo' buddy,

Rog

P.S. Are you really sure of what you wanted to say in your bolded statement above? What do you mean by a transition from a Flat Earth to a Round Earth? I hope this isn't what it seems...!

[shunyadragon]

The date of the Flood is around 500,000 years ago.

There is not any scriptural evidence that would date the flood at this time.

There is not any physical evidence that such a flood ever occured 10,000 or 500,000 years ago.

[shunyadragon]

Well, the earth is mostly water, and it can easily cover the whole earth. The water now is deep, this is where the water came from and this is where the water went. From and to the depths of the ocean floor.

Looking at Genesis chapter one reveals clearly that water covered the whoel earth in length and depth.

Yes, water actually filled the whole earth because there was no sky.God then separated the sky from the water, THEN gatherd water fron the land! He didn't make the water disappear, He gathered it, condensed it.

This is irrefutable proof via scripture that water can and did cover every piece of land on the earth.

'Irrefutable proof via scripture' is an oxymoron. Scripture involves belief. There is 'irrefutable proof' via scientific methods and history that the flood never happened, but that does not prevent people from believing in it based on scripture.

[AntonS]

'Irrefutable proof via scripture' is an oxymoron. Scripture involves belief. There is 'irrefutable proof' via scientific methods and history that the flood never happened, but that does not prevent people from believing in it based on scripture.All proofs refer to individual feelings. All knowledges are beliefs. What is evident for someone may be not evident for others.