Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

I can only read this as you indicting thousands of geologists of making unreasonable explanations for decades. These tens of thousands geologist with all their training and their access to physics and astrophysics and chemistry are unable to arrive at a reasonable explanation. Is this your claim? What alternative explanation might you have for your statement?lfen

Ifen, it is the simplest thing for Faith to believe that all of those scientists are dupes of the devil or members of some great atheistic conpiracy. What is impossible for her to believe is that anything which the bible says or which she interprets the bible to say could possibly be wrong. If reality contradicts her beliefs then reality must be wrong.Isn't ignorance bliss?

Hi,Are there no Christian geologists among the tens of thousands of geologists?In archaeology, it was Christian archaeologists who discovered evidence that contradicted many biblical claims, for example,the exodus, the conquest, flood, and Jonah's story, were all rejected by Christian archaeologists. I cannot think of a single archaeologist that takes the bible at face value.Brian.

Glenn Morton is a Christian geologist. He even use to be YEC. Anyone here post on TWeb? Maybe they could convince him to do some posting here also.AbEHere is his story of leaving YECism http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htmThis message has been edited by Asgara, 03-08-2006 08:23 AM

Mark24, I would like to add my 2 cents worth on the topic of a Global Flood.

It is not necessary for me to have to believe in this as for verifying my credentials as a Christian.

The case made by the evolutionists and/or traditional scientists seems to be of a majority opinion. Just as I respect a large group of believers (more than "cult" size) for being adamant about their belief, so also do I respect scientists and students who have studied and put a lot of hours into their disciplines.

​

It seems to me that either the Biblical Flood was entirely symbolic, or that it was a local flood.

​

As an aside to Faith, I respect your Christian beliefs yet I don't think that we are called into the arena to defend Literalism by making a science or a pseudo- science that fits our beliefs.

​

You may respond to me sharply...(without calling anyone names, of course! )

​

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

That's because there are not mainline jobs out there for professional Christian idist geologists. The Christian idist geologists are for the most part not funded or salaried for this reason. They are people like Wyatt, Moler, some ICR folks and others who are not recognized by the secularist geology establishment. If you don't buy the mainline line geologically, your on your own. Most are likely part timers, like Wyatt was.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Folk like Wyatt and ICR aren't recognized by the Christian Geologist community either because they have never been able to provide any evidence that stands up to even a cursory examination.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In your link of Glen Morton he says this: Glen obviously is closed minded to the arguments of ICR and others that there are more than one possibility as to how to interpret the Grand Canyon. To imply as he is here that this couldn't possibly come about by the flood shows that he's one sided and well educated into the secularist viewpoint and possibly unaware of the Biblical literalist interpretation of what is observed here.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

That's a matter of your biased opinion, Jar. Most Christian geologists are secularists in respect to geology. As I said, most who get a professional job as a geologist either go at it secularistically or they don't get hired in the field of research in this aspect of geology. The others who do the idist geology work aren't on anyone's payroll or in the journals, et al.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Buz, Glenn was a part of ICR. He published for them for years until he just couldn't continue. He wasn't closed minded to the arguments of ICR, he tried for years to reconcile what he had found with what they taught.Did you honestly read that whole article? He was definately NOT one sided and was very much in the middle of the biblical literalist interpretations.

Of course they are. Geology IS secular. It cannot be anything but secular. That's why the folks at ICR and all will NEVER make any progress.They are on a dead end road. Thank GOD. Until the IDists can learn the basics of science, that you cannot start with conclusions, they will never be considered anything but a marginal pseudoscience. They begin with the conclusion and then wilfully ignore evidence that refutes their basic premise. That will never progress beyond snakeoil salesmen.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First of all, hi everyone, I've been lurking here for a while, and just thought I could attempt to bridge a misunderstanding about the grass issue. Hopefully this will help rather than harm the discussion.The question was raised about what sort of distribution we should expect to see of grass in flood deposits. Faith, I believe you replied that the lower layers were absent any grass because they were primarily marine deposits, in other words, the grass environment wasn't fossilized until later in the progression of the flood waters.The challenge for the global flood is that there are a great many layers that preserve *land* environments and vegetation- but grass doesn't appear until the very highest levels- the Cenozoic strata, I believe is what geologists call it. Before that we have different kinds of land plants of all sorts, cycads, ferns, sedges, etc., but no grasses (or grass seeds or pollen) until you get to those top layers. So do you see why that would cause us to question why a pattern like that exists? Wouldn't those grasses have been in the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous land environments? Why aren't they there, if these layers all represent the same period of time? That's one of the puzzles the global flood theory would have to overcome.I'm coming from this as layman, like you are, so hopefully you won't feel I'm trying to talk over your head. I've also tried to keep this post focused on the "Global Flood Evidence" topic rather than put forth evidence for mainstream geology.

I was specifically answering a rude sarcastic remark about grasses running for high ground with a reasonable conjecture from my point of view. The grasses were not the topic of interest to me and I shouldn't have answered that post at all. These puzzles are not of interest to me. How would I know why they sorted themselves as they did? How would anyone know? The Old Earth people don't have to work very hard. They can just decide, oh well this is proof that grasses evolved later, case closed.But what you are calling "land environments" already reflects the assumptions of the OE frame of reference. To a floodist these aren't "environments" of course. Floodists may think along lines of the layers' representing sediments and living things from different originating geographic areas that were conveyed in different water currents to their final location. In that frame of reference the grasses were carried in currents that finally deposited in the top layers. Why? I don't know. Creationists have ideas, but how would anyone know for sure? I'm not really concerned about people talking over my head, but people being insistent on their own point of view and ignoring my perfectly reasonable alternative view. Unfortunately I joined this thread without having any real interest in it, as I'd said all I wanted to say on the previous thread that prompted it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 02:35 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 02:36 AM

quote:

---

That's because there are not mainline jobs out there for professional Christian idist geologists. The Christian idist geologists are for the most part not funded or salaried for this reason. They are people like Wyatt, Moler, some ICR folks and others who are not recognized by the secularist geology establishment.

---

That's a complete fabrication. Wyatt and Moller have never even claimed to be geologists - they aren't qualified and thir writings relating to archaeology and history are incompetent at best. So why mention them ?THe ID movement takes no position on the age of the earth - there could well be IDist geologists out there who simply aren't prominent enough to be noticed.Both Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin were employed as geologists, and have published papersAnd of course geology started with a view of a young Earth and a literal Flood. Those ideas were refuted. A creatinist Christian - Aggassiz even played a significant role in it by identifying deposts previously thought to have been due to the flood as glacial in origin.So Buz, I really suggest that you take the time to learn the facts instead of inventing false claims.

Faith, It isn't reasonable at all, as has been pointed out numerous times by myself & others. You have failed to address the rebuttals & resorted to an "I'm right, you're wrong mentality".You also keep saying the flood scenario is the more elegant & parsimonious explanation, despite admitting all of the unexplainables the flood has that mainstream geology doesn't. How can it be more parsimonious? Do you even know what it means?You wonder why you get no respect?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-10-2006 03:20 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't