Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

Biblical arguments against "Flood Geology"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Looking at taking the position the Biblical flood from a global stand point was local. The biblical position would entail that it destroyed the whole human race save Noah and his family.

    Genesis 9:10,
    . . . And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, . . .
    . . to every beast of the earth.

    Understanding a distinction between the animals Noah took on the ark from animals elsewhere on the earth.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      This is great stuff. Give that: Please give an example from geology that explicitly rules out the universe flood view
      I assume that you mean "that explicitly rules out the global flood view." I (along with Hugh Ross, Bill Dembski, and others) hold to what has been called the "universal flood view", that the Flood killed all mankind. This could have been accomplished with a large regional flood if man had not yet spread over the entire planet.

      First, we don't find a thick flood layer everywhere on the planet at the same time. Leonard Wooley thought he had found a very thick flood layer at Ur, but he was mistaken.

      Second, we would need a miraculous creation and destruction of water in order to cover the entire globe.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Also you might explain how coal and oil C14 contamination causes them to date near the 30,000 years ago range. Thanks.
      The maximum date that one gets from radiocarbon is usually about 40,000-45,000 years. Normal measurement techniques introduce a small amount of modern carbon contamination, and the instruments have a finite background level, all of which equates to about this date.

      Even a small amount of extra contamination will cause a sample to date younger. Coal is not a good material for radiocarbon dating; it is like a sponge, and is easily contaminated with modern carbon from groundwater (while buried) or from the atmosphere (after mining). That's why coal usually does not date as old as expected. I'm not familiar with attempts to date oil, but I suspect the situation is similar. (BTW, wood is a very good material for dating and normally does not have these problems.)
      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
        Of course the words "earth" (eretz) and "mountain" (har) are different. To most modern readers, "the whole earth" includes the mountains; the "mountains" are a feature of the "earth". I'm pointing out that in Gen 8:9 the phrase "all of the earth" or "the whole earth" clearly does not include the distant mountain peaks. And if this is the way that the author uses language in chapter 8, it should inform our interpretation in Gen 6-7, also.
        I think the point here is that if "earth" means something like soil in this verse, distinguished from mountain tops, then "all" can still mean "all" in this verse. In which case it isn't reason to think the previous uses of "all" in Genesis were restricted. It could only inform our understanding of other uses of "earth".


        Now what about God's covenant in chapter 9, "and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh." Sounds like that includes more than humans. Surely God didn't promise that there would never again be a local flood that kills the land animals in the region of the local flood?

        Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
        First, we don't find a thick flood layer everywhere on the planet at the same time. Leonard Wooley thought he had found a very thick flood layer at Ur, but he was mistaken.
        I'm certainly no expert, but the accounts I've read from creation science sites don't seem to predict an equal, thick flood everywhere. They don't predict one deposit of sediment. Rather they say their models have the rising flood waters moving chaotically around the globe, such that in any one place, the flood waters may rise, recede, and rise again many times as the flood rose, over weeks.

        Second, we would need a miraculous creation and destruction of water in order to cover the entire globe.
        I recently saw in the news a story about someone finding evidence that there are massive reserves of water under the earth. The scientist was quoted saying that it was so much water that if it were all brought up, it would cover the earth.

        On the other hand, it seems clear that flood in the Bible is intended to be understood to be a miraculous event. So how would the need for a miracle be a problem?

        Comment


        • #34
          Joel,

          The flood is held by all [surely most] Christians to be universal in that it killed all mankind and all the animals that where on earth with all mankind. The issue is, was the universal flood truly global in scope? I had not really thought about it, until I comprehend what such a flood would have to be. It has been for over 40 years I have been convinced that it was global. That which is called the geological time scale was is really of the world wide flood strata. That understanding allowed me to accept the Genesis account as actual 6 days. Prior to that I held a day age interpretation base on Genesis 2:4 referring the creation of the heavens and the earth as a day - ". . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, . . ."

          I believe in a very old universe (Genesis 1:1).
          Last edited by 37818; 12-08-2015, 07:52 PM.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #35
            The problem with flood geology for the church is that it ignores the certain fact that there was not just one flood in the Bible but at least two. The only theological construct that even attempted to deal with the oddities in the opening verses of Genesis was and is the gap theory but it fails due to inserting too much unsupported theories. Christians almost never address the issue of a pre creation week flood but jews do and and did hundreds of years before Darwin.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
              The problem with flood geology for the church is that it ignores the certain fact that there was not just one flood in the Bible but at least two. The only theological construct that even attempted to deal with the oddities in the opening verses of Genesis was and is the gap theory but it fails due to inserting too much unsupported theories. Christians almost never address the issue of a pre creation week flood but jews do and and did hundreds of years before Darwin.
              How old do you think Earth and the cosmos are?

              This could result in a productive discussion, provided more than opinion is brought forth.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                How old do you think Earth and the cosmos are?

                This could result in a productive discussion, provided more than opinion is brought forth.
                This area is for creationists (either OEC or YEC) only.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Plus he already knows I am OEC. this thread is about Flood geology not the age of the cosmos.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    To the argument in the first post, I've thought of the basic idea before that "all" there might not mean literally global, though not your specific justification. But the issue is that earlier the perspective does appear to be God's, and this, too, is normal in the Bible. The fact is it often goes back and forth between God's POV and humans (here, as you rightly point out, the dove's, briefly -- but even this doesn't help show that only one perspective is in the account, as surely the whole account isn't from the dove's point of view!).

                    The biggest problem is that a specific measurement is given for how much over the mountains the water was.

                    While I could think of some ways out of this (perhaps it just meant Noah thought that was the depth at which he couldn't see any mountaintops if he happened to go over one), we also shouldn't deny that it could be God revealing this, just like he reveals his personal thoughts both before and after this (after being at Babel). Certainly we cannot justify Noah motoring the ark over known mountain locations by GPS and doing depth finding at every single one!

                    Another problem is that it's repeated with so much emphasis so many times.

                    Showing that some cases of "all" aren't literally all cannot mean that all cases aren't (if you'll pardon the pun), and we would have to look to the context to tell the difference. I applaud your attempt to show one from the context that argues against it, and that's a fair point, but the repeated emphasis is a common way to show it means the opposite.

                    Also, the phrases are different. Previously it says that "all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered", but later just " the waters were still on the face of the whole earth". And the fact that it already told us the mountains were visible can mean the exact opposite of how you're taking it -- that in this case the context is there that tells us they meant it one way, but previously (before the water had started to go down), there's a different context that tells us that there it's meant universally.

                    I've noticed a similar mistake, for example, being made by those that argue that because the context of Genesis 2:4 defines the word for "day" there as clearly longer than one Earth-rotation, this could justify ignoring the context of day in its previous two uses (daylight and one earth-rotation time period). But really the way the language worked was that the presence of context in both cases (all three cases in this example) was so readers would know three different uses were in play.

                    Your argument in fact looks almost identical to the fallacy used in that case. You're pointing to the context of a later usage, but instead of looking at the context of the earlier, it looks like you're just saying "so maybe it meant this earlier too". Maybe so, but we need to pay close attention to both.

                    In any event, I don't really know what difference it makes if some mountaintops far away from any humans were still visible (would have been if anybody'd seen them). Unless you want to invoke a "waterstacking" miracle here (which is admittedly possible but not implied in the text as far as I can tell), all major places that most animals lived in would be devastated by that too.


                    To replies:


                    To the debate around Psalm 104, first, notice that this Psalm is talking about the present-day (or at least is not limited to the creation event):

                    The young lions roar for their prey,
                    seeking their food from God.
                    (Relevant because of the end of Genesis 1 saying animals ate plants pre-Fall, if you take that literally anyway.)

                    Man goes out to his work
                    and to his labor until the evening.
                    (This one rules out at least that the whole song is talking about creation before humans, and certainly looks more present-day than anything else.)

                    However, I'm still not sure this Psalm is valid to use either way. If you already believe that there was a global Flood, then it makes sense this has to refer to it (so saying water won't cover the earth again is alluding to the second time it did; the Flood). If you assume that Flood wasn't global, then you could try to argue they somehow weren't thinking of it (although that does seem unlikely since it was recorded in their Scriptures as apparently all-encompassing as the topic starter argued; even if it wasn't, would they know that -- and this is a poetic book anyways, who says they mean it literally here either?), and this Psalm could be made to fit as the first water covering everything in creation.

                    I think all things considered, it's probably talking about the Flood (it sounds like the promise not to send another like it is in mind), but it doesn't make that crystal clear.

                    Anyway, if the catastrophic plate tectonics model is correct, and it has a lot of evidence, mountains like Everest would not have existed prior to the Flood, whether this Psalm is meant to include examples like that (through inspiration) or not.



                    To Mikeenders:

                    "The problem with flood geology for the church is that it ignores the certain fact that there was not just one flood in the Bible but at least two."

                    I've never seen any biblical creationists arguing that water wasn't covering the whole earth at the start of creation week. But if that was how God started things out originally, it's not really a "flood" in the same sense as the one of Noah's time, which covered something previously dry. Peter, after all, describes this as "the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished."

                    So, the first 'flood' is seen as God creating earth originally with no land visible, and then making land appear, and later flooding the land during Noah's time. This isn't ignored.

                    Now, some say there was land prior to this that was flooded, but it appears to be speculation. (Also, it's not really clear how the number of Floods prior to the one God promised wouldn't be followed by others is relevant; how does it create any problem for Flood geology?)
                    Last edited by logician bones; 01-02-2016, 02:17 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                      The problem with flood geology for the church is that it ignores the certain fact that there was not just one flood in the Bible but at least two. The only theological construct that even attempted to deal with the oddities in the opening verses of Genesis was and is the gap theory but it fails due to inserting too much unsupported theories. Christians almost never address the issue of a pre creation week flood but jews do and and did hundreds of years before Darwin.
                      I recall reading answersingenesis articles talking about a model in which the lowest geologic layers and fossils are said to have been laid down during the cataclysmic events of the creation week. (And they consider it as a normal week of 24 hr days.)

                      Comment

                      widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                      Working...
                      X