|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Even the Bible gives us evidence RR, not evidence of the geology of the Flood, but evidence of God Himself and His character. What do you think all the miracles were for? Just to persuade those who were there? Isn't the Bible written for us too?
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
That statement isn't true. Jesus Himself encouraged Thomas to use objective evidence. Jesus did encourage Thomas, who was otherwise unconvinced, to use objective evidence. However, Jesus also indicated that believing without the evidence was preferable. Which is beside the point. Someone insisting first that they believe God deliberately did not provide evidence, then later insisting that there is evidence, might well be a bit confused. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: The standard theory can't be known either. And it's so utterly absurd I would hope some people would soon wake up and see it. There you go posting Porkies again. Of course the standard theory can be known and it is really, really simple and far from absurd. The standard theory is that in geology the same processes we see going on today also happened in the past. The standard theory in biology is that the fossils and casts found in reality are indications of the living things at an earlier time. Change leaves evidence. See Faith, the standard theory can be known. The Earth is old. There has never been a flood during the time humans lived. It really is that simple
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Even the Bible gives us evidence RR, not evidence of the geology of the Flood, but evidence of God Himself and His character. The stories written in the Bible by men are only evidence of what their religious beliefs were.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes I know early geologists expected geology to confirm the Bible but their imagination was too limited to see that it really does; that's why they went with the so-called evidence of an ancient earth, which hardly deserves the term "evidence" at all, since until radiometric dating methods came along it was just a lot of stuff like Hutton's assessment of Siccar Point .. Yes the evidence of relative age and the fact that fossils and sedimentary layers do - not - support a global flood, but many local and repeated floods. Blindingly obvious except to the willingly blind. Leonardo da Vince figured it out, and he is not someone I would call of limited imagination nor someone who could look at evidence and not figure out that clam shells in hillsides were not evidence of a global flood, but that they used to be sea floor. But that's not all, now we do have radiometric dating methods and they have been confirmed to be accurate and they do in fact confirm that the geological evidence shows the earth is indeed very very very old.
... and the unconformity occurred after all the strata were laid down, just as similar formations occurred elsewhere after the Flood. Yes strata just decides to turn over in their graves because flood.
The standard theory can't be known either. ... Curiously the "standard theory" can explain all the evidence ... all the evidence. Your fantasy cannot explain any of it ... any of it. Your arguments are laughable. Uranium halos show the earth is very, very, very old. It doesn't take dating methods to show the earth is very, very, very old, because there is such an overwhelming mountain of evidence it is old, evidence that YECies - and faith - are incapable of refuting. All they can do is deny, say god-did-it with magic flying carpet water, and then run away. It's tiresome to see these same thread-bare arguments regurgitated on every thread that brings up the flood or the age of the earth, arguments that have been refuted and refuted and refuted. They might be entertaining for a while, but it gets old, very, very, very old ... and so tiresome. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I agree that the whole argument gets boring repeated over and over as it is, yours too.
Da Vinci missed it, what can I say? The evidence doesn't show repeated local floods at all, the strata are way too consistent for that, as are the fossils. Everything about the strata says Flood, not time periods, as I've argued here many times. It does become tiresome, it's hard to keep repeating the same obvious arguments. They're good arguments, you really should acknowledge that. The standard theory "explains" it all by stretching reality beyond the breaking point, if you'd just bother to consider what it implies, which I've laid out many times. The Flood is the most obvious natural explanation of what is actually seen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The Flood is the most obvious natural explanation of what is actually seen. "The Flood" is not a natural explanation--it is strictly religiously based. If nobody had ever heard of the bible, nobody would be pushing "The Flood" as an explanation for the natural phenomena. As it is, the only folks pushing the idea of a global flood are religiously based. That should give you some indication...Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The evidence doesn't show repeated local floods at all, the strata are way too consistent for that, as are the fossils. Everything about the strata says Flood, not time periods, as I've argued here many times. Then you need to show the model, mechanism, method, procedure or process that will allow your flood to deposit a column of millions of repeating fine silt layers alternating with coarse silt layers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
The evidence doesn't show repeated local floods at all, the strata are way too consistent for that, as are the fossils. A short argument, without getting into the countless other details outside of your one, one year flood model - The evidence DOES show repeated major sea transgressions and regressions, none which covered all the land surface, at least (maybe) way back in the pre-Cambrian. If this is the evidence of the Noahtic flood (again, not mentioning all the details that happen between the transgressions), the God had a lot of false starts (oops, don't have enough water yet ) and never did pull off the complete job (oops, there just isn't enough water to be had). Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Just to throw in an additional thought to the mix.
Here's the basic creationist argument:
OK, so then shouldn't the geological evidence that we find today be an indication of how God had created everything? Please note that when I presented this to Faith, she rejected it in the strongest terms possible. So then, God wrote the rocks, but Faith rejects that. Man wrote the Bible, but Faith insists on her own particular interpretation of that Man-made document to be Absolute Divine Truth. Yeah, right. Whatever!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've argued this before so don't know why I left this out: that Da Vinci got it right that the mountains weren't there when the seashells were deposited, they were underwater: the Flood, and got raised up after the Flood into mountains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just to throw in an additional thought to the mix. Here's the basic creationist argument: God created.God created the earth and life and everything else, including all the geology we find today. OK, so then shouldn't the geological evidence that we find today be an indication of how God had created everything? No, that's a very common error. The basic constituents of the Creation are no doubt the same, the physics and chemistry, but what we see today shows the effects of the Fall much more than the Creation. The Flood would have massively rearranged the surface of the Earth, and there should now be uninhabitable places where before the Flood there were none, and far less vegetation and animal life too.
Please note that when I presented this to Faith, she rejected it in the strongest terms possible. I don't remember that, but I do reject it, for the reason given above.
So then, God wrote the rocks, but Faith rejects that. Man wrote the Bible, but Faith insists on her own particular interpretation of that Man-made document to be Absolute Divine Truth. Well, God wrote the Flood too if you want to go that route. But now you are saying something different than I thought you were saying. What I say to this argument is that we haven't the ability to read the environment we live in. Think how long it took before we had any kind of viable Science at all, a pretty recent development. And you'd never find the worldwide Flood by just looking in the world would you, as is only so sadly evident at EvC. And scripture says what we SHOULD see in the world is the handiwork of God, but instead we have a pretty atheistic science these days. So obviously we can't count on ourselves to understand what God "wrote" in His created world. We'd never get the doctrine of salvation out of it, that's for sure. That's why He gave us the Bible. The written word can speak to us and explain things, the physical world cannot. This whole idea that the Creation is God's message is just some kind of sophistry aimed at undercutting the Bible, Truth itself. Oh I agree, it IS a message but since we misread it it might as well be a foreign language. There is that lovely psalm that tells us
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Is this what the Creation teaches you? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: And that claim is false as we have shown. The fact that you have to keep ignoring or trying to explain away so much of the evidence is proof that you are on the wrong track.
quote: Faith, you may be desperate enough to believe obvious falsehoods - after all you'd have to admit that you were wrong about the Flood. But that is nothing to the rest of us. We don't have to ignore evidence that proves you wrong. We don't have to invent or believe daft distortions of the conventional view. The evidence is conclusive. The strata were deposited over long periods of time. The fossils represent a long history of life. Neither were created by a single event lasting only a year. The idea is simply ridiculous. And your efforts do nothing to change that. By repeating false claims again and again, all you show is your refusal to accept the truth. And we have no reason to support you in that refusal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The evidence is no doubt some completely circumstantial facts that are imaginatively but falsely interpreted into seas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I repeat the truth, sorry you don't see it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024