Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Biblical arguments against "Flood Geology"

  1. #21
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    86
    Amen (Given)
    223
    Amen (Received)
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    There is scientific evidence for fossils in many places, but deposited at widely different times in different events. There is textual biblical evidence that the Flood covered "all the land" (whatever this means), but no mention of fossil deposition. The "extrabiblical speculation" is associating the fossils with the Flood.
    When could the fossils have been deposited except during the flood? Through the fossils God has given us scientific evidence to support the story of the flood.

    Do you have any evidence for your statement that the fossils were deposited at different times and in different events?
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/

  2. #22
    Mor
    Guest
    I think the Bible can't be used as an evidence. Even in the Bible itself, those who relied upon scriptures were among the enemies of Christ. Do you know anything beyond the Bible? The Bible is a good book, but it is worthless if you do not have anything to remember. It is as if a you are looking at a photo, but don't remember that you are a participant. I personally do not understand many things in the Bible, because I was not part of the events, or, at least, I don't remember anything. We are living in the Renaissance era, so many people remember many different things. Just look at contemporary paintings, books, movies, games. They are popular because they inspire and are close to our nature. The Bible is good too (not better, and not worse). If you can't say anything beyond what is in the Bible, I think it is better to leave it as it is, and say that whoever wants to read it, just let them read it themselves. All the more, those things have been misunderstood even in the times of Christ, because not so many people know what the book is really about.

  3. #23
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,153
    Amen (Given)
    17864
    Amen (Received)
    5877
    Mor, I require a response to my last Personal Message.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mor View Post
    I think the Bible can't be used as an evidence. Even in the Bible itself, those who relied upon scriptures were among the enemies of Christ. Do you know anything beyond the Bible? The Bible is a good book, but it is worthless if you do not have anything to remember. It is as if a you are looking at a photo, but don't remember that you are a participant. I personally do not understand many things in the Bible, because I was not part of the events, or, at least, I don't remember anything. We are living in the Renaissance era, so many people remember many different things. Just look at contemporary paintings, books, movies, games. They are popular because they inspire and are close to our nature. The Bible is good too (not better, and not worse). If you can't say anything beyond what is in the Bible, I think it is better to leave it as it is, and say that whoever wants to read it, just let them read it themselves. All the more, those things have been misunderstood even in the times of Christ, because not so many people know what the book is really about.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

  4. #24
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    When could the fossils have been deposited except during the flood?
    Most of the aquatic fossils that we find were fossilized after they died and fell to the bottom of the sea. Most of the earth's land mass was covered by seas at various times in the past. If you want to know the details, check any standard historical geology textbook.

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    Through the fossils God has given us scientific evidence to support the story of the flood.
    No, the scientific data doesn't fit a single worldwide flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    Do you have any evidence for your statement that the fossils were deposited at different times and in different events?
    Yes, of course. Many, many fossils have been dated. Many of the events (subsidence, uplift, mass extinctions, etc) have been dated as well. They span hundreds of millions of years. (The "Cambrian explosion", for example, left fossils about 500 million years ago. The K-T extinction left fossils about 65 million years ago.)
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

  5. #25
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    86
    Amen (Given)
    223
    Amen (Received)
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    Most of the aquatic fossils that we find were fossilized after they died and fell to the bottom of the sea. Most of the earth's land mass was covered by seas at various times in the past. If you want to know the details, check any standard historical geology textbook.
    Fossilization is only possible when a dead body is buried immediately at death, an event that often occurs in floods but is rare otherwise. Most geology textbooks are written by people who don't consider the Bible a reliable guide to the truth.

    Yes, of course. Many, many fossils have been dated. Many of the events (subsidence, uplift, mass extinctions, etc) have been dated as well. They span hundreds of millions of years. (The "Cambrian explosion", for example, left fossils about 500 million years ago. The K-T extinction left fossils about 65 million years ago.)
    There is no way to check the accuracy of these dates.
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/

  6. #26
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,411
    Amen (Given)
    770
    Amen (Received)
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    Sorry, my statement above is very misleading when removed from the previous context. I should have been clearer. The "extrabiblical speculation" is the idea that there are "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains" due to a single, worldwide inundation.
    Understood. I understand otherwise.
    There is scientific evidence for fossils in many places, but deposited at widely different times in different events. There is textual biblical evidence that the Flood covered "all the land" (whatever this means), but no mention of fossil deposition. The "extrabiblical speculation" is associating the fossils with the Flood.
    Yes, there are a lot of facts we know scientifically that the written word of God is silent on. A lot.

    You do not believe the plain text of the Bible.
    Why do you accuse me of not believing the plain text of the Bible? I agree with you on what the text says. The question is what it means. As I showed in the OP, there is evidence in the Flood account itself that "all" is not used as a universal term.
    Can you support the Hebrew in a text elsewhere where the "all" cannot mean "all?" Honestly, I do not see in the text in question where "all" cannot mean "all." You are arguing in the context that it shouldn't in the context in question. I do not see it.

    (BTW, I am a scientist, with graduate degrees in both science and theology. I DO believe the biblical text; I believe that Scripture is inerrant in its original manuscripts.)
    OK. Field of science research or PhD? [I'm a tool programmer, CNC Milling. Now the flood theory of geology, I comprehended to be true over 40 years ago, changed my understanding of Genesis 1:3-. Even though I still believe in an old universe, the crust of the earth 4.5 billion years ago, Genesis 1:2. And 6 earth days in Genesis 1:3-. I reject the classic gap theory Genesis 1:2. To OEC I'm a YEC. To YEC I'm an OEC. ]




    Whether I want it or not is irrelevant. This seems to be the clear implication of the biblical text.
    No it is not clear. The text is understood as the whole earth was flooded. That is clear.

    We can go in circles on this. Let us concentrate on your understanding where "all" does not mean "all" from your reading of the text. Step me through this.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

  7. #27
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Can you support the Hebrew in a text elsewhere where the "all" cannot mean "all?" Honestly, I do not see in the text in question where "all" cannot mean "all." You are arguing in the context that it shouldn't in the context in question. I do not see it.

    ...

    No it is not clear. The text is understood as the whole earth was flooded. That is clear.

    We can go in circles on this. Let us concentrate on your understanding where "all" does not mean "all" from your reading of the text. Step me through this.
    This is explained in the OP. Gen 8 says that water covered "all of the earth" (kal-ha-eretz), yet the mountains were visible. The "all" is clearly not an absolute "all".

    What is unclear about the OP? What needs more explanation?

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    OK. Field of science research or PhD? [I'm a tool programmer, CNC Milling. Now the flood theory of geology, I comprehended to be true over 40 years ago, changed my understanding of Genesis 1:3-. Even though I still believe in an old universe, the crust of the earth 4.5 billion years ago, Genesis 1:2. And 6 earth days in Genesis 1:3-. I reject the classic gap theory Genesis 1:2. To OEC I'm a YEC. To YEC I'm an OEC. ]
    My PhD is in physics. My professional experience is in particle accelerator physics, electron microscopy, and radiocarbon dating.

    I grew up hearing lots of "Flood Geology" presentations, was somewhat skeptical of it, and didn't realize how scientifically erroneous it was until college.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

  8. #28
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,411
    Amen (Given)
    770
    Amen (Received)
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    This is explained in the OP. Gen 8 says that water covered "all of the earth" (kal-ha-eretz), yet the mountains were visible. The "all" is clearly not an absolute "all".

    What is unclear about the OP? What needs more explanation?
    The text makes a distinction being made between the mountains and the "earth." Genesis 7:19, 20. So in Genesis 8:5 tops up mountains are seen and the earth is still under water Genesis 8:7. Genesis 8:8 a different word "ground."
    You do realize what the common understanding is. How do we press the issue that it must be understood as you are explaining?

    My PhD is in physics. My professional experience is in particle accelerator physics, electron microscopy, and radiocarbon dating.
    Cool. Do you have a copy or seen W. F. Libby's book, Radiocarbon Dating?

    I grew up hearing lots of "Flood Geology" presentations, was somewhat skeptical of it, and didn't realize how scientifically erroneous it was until college.
    Ok. You have an understanding that I am missing here.

    You are, I trust, familiar with Dr. Hugh Ross and www.reasons.org then. He is an OEC. He does not believe the flood was world wide.

    Now you being a physicist, I have what would be to you a hypothetical question, what would be required and the result of a truly global flood, if one was to have happened? What should be the evidence today if such a thing happened. Say, over 8,000 years ago. Or longer 200,000. Would there not be common world wide sediment layers across continents? Thanks.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

  9. Amen theophilus amen'd this post.
  10. #29
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    The text makes a distinction being made between the mountains and the "earth." Genesis 7:19, 20. So in Genesis 8:5 tops up mountains are seen and the earth is still under water Genesis 8:7. Genesis 8:8 a different word "ground."
    You do realize what the common understanding is. How do we press the issue that it must be understood as you are explaining?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Cool. Do you have a copy or seen W. F. Libby's book, Radiocarbon Dating?
    Yes. It's pretty old and outdated now, but is still valuable for historical interest.

    Modern radiocarbon dating is very different now than it was in Libby's day. I like Erv Taylor's paradigm; we are now into the third radiocarbon "revolution". Libby was the first revolution, tree ring calibration was the second, and AMS was the third. In particular, calibration removes essentially all of the "assumptions" that Libby made (and that YECs routinely attack).

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Ok. You have an understanding that I am missing here.

    You are, I trust, familiar with Dr. Hugh Ross and www.reasons.org then. He is an OEC. He does not believe the flood was world wide.
    Yes, I know Hugh, am a volunteer apologist for RTB, and am an officer in my local RTB chapter.

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Now you being a physicist, I have what would be to you a hypothetical question, what would be required and the result of a truly global flood, if one was to have happened? What should be the evidence today if such a thing happened. Say, over 8,000 years ago. Or longer 200,000. Would there not be common world wide sediment layers across continents? Thanks.
    Yes, there would be a sediment layer. Its thickness would be highly dependent on local details of flooding and draining, but I wouldn't expect it to be more than a few times thicker than a large regional flood. I certainly wouldn't expect it to make thousands of feet of sediment that magically turns into rock. An 8000 year old flood would be easily detected and measured by radiocarbon; a 200,000 year old flood by other radioisotopes.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

  11. #30
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,411
    Amen (Given)
    770
    Amen (Received)
    404
    First, thank you.

    Quote 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.
    Understood. The difference is one view argues the "tops of mountains" are included in "all the earth" and the other view contends a distinction is being made. How can we show this second view is wrong?



    Yes, I know Hugh, am a volunteer apologist for RTB, and am an officer in my local RTB chapter.
    Cool.

    Yes, there would be a sediment layer. Its thickness would be highly dependent on local details of flooding and draining, but I wouldn't expect it to be more than a few times thicker than a large regional flood. I certainly wouldn't expect it to make thousands of feet of sediment that magically turns into rock. An 8000 year old flood would be easily detected and measured by radiocarbon; a 200,000 year old flood by other radioisotopes.
    This is great stuff. Give that: Please give an example from geology that explicitly rules out the universe flood view

    Also you might explain how coal and oil C14 contamination causes them to date near the 30,000 years ago range. Thanks.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •