Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

You bet the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict. But that doesn't mean there aren't also scientific observations that accord with it. There are plenty. A lot more than I'm familiar with personally, but the few I am familiar with are in my opinion pretty damning of the OE and ToE claims.

The fossilized marine life found in the mountains is found IN the mountains, within the layers that are clearly visible in many mountain formations, showing that like all the other stratifications to be found on the earth laden with fossils, it was all once sediment, mud, laid down in water -- already full of the dead things within it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 05:43 PM

Fait, I believe that my comments are an accurate representation of your position as demonstrated by your behaviour and your own writings.

FaithI am glad we are able to continue debate here without being off topic. Here is a recap of the discussion we ahd earlir in the Define Kind thread. Would you be willling to explain the difficulties that Antarctica poses Faith?

Faith,Please address the OP, it is, after all, a response to you.Mark

---

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

Two major answers occur:1) Antarctica was not always at the pole, but moved there when the continents split apart from the original "Pangaea," which Floodists believe occurred as a result of the tectonic forces released in the Flood, and occurred a lot more rapidly than science allows.2) I don't get why you ask "if there were no ice after the flood where did all the ice today come from?" All the ice on the planet started after the Flood, again a result of the great upheavals the planet went through at that time, including possibly the tilting of the axis of the planet, or simply the removal of what is often considered to have been a great "canopy" of moisture that surrounded the planet, keeping warmth in -- which canopy provided all the rain for the Flood.The pre-Flood world is understood to have been an extraordinarily lush place, and temperately warm all over. No deserts, no very high mountains, no snow or ice.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 07:26 PM

Have you considered what such a rapid rate of tectonic movement would do to the earth?If you are so inclined, then you might take a gander here at msg 96The amount of energy released in such a scenario would raise the surface temperatures of the earth to 100's of degree's. Never mind the effect of the canopy itself (Venus eat your heart out).

Yeah I'm aware of all those calculations. They could be wrong you know. There is no way to test them as the whole thing is guessing, based on creationists' attempts to reconstruct the scene imaginatively from the Bible. Many other variables are no doubt involved. And certainly the mathematicians aren't interested in finding the most plausible scenario themselves, are they? No, they are quite content if their numbers prove us wrong.

I think we should be able to move on past the "conspiracy" theory for the sake of the thread? Besides, I didn't take you for a conspiracy-type person, but one who was interested in advancing your understanding? Are mathematicians now involved in some evo conspiracy as well?

quote:

---

There is no way to test them as the whole thing is guessing, based on creationists' attempts to reconstruct the scene imaginatively from the Bible.

---

There are ways of testing the individual parts of the calculation. We can test and determine the amount of heat required to melt many types of rocks. We know how much heat (in joules) it is required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We can determine the density of different rock types, etc. The funny fact is, you can do those tests yourself and get a very resonable approximation of the answers without expensive equipment. You could do the calculations yourself. But sadly you seem more than unwilling to question your own position, and whether or not your conclusions are reasonable.While there are certainly more variables that could be added to the calculation to make it more precise, it would have such a small effect to the output that they are not worth putting in.I don't want you to abandon your beliefs in a Christian God nor do I think it is unreasonable for you to hold such a belief. In the face of reality though, I would think you could self-evaluate your conclusions and maybe realize that God can still reside in the very tenents of evolution and an old earth.

God as defined in the Bible and taken straight is incompatible with evolution and an old earth, DB. Way it is.There are too many ways this scenario could have existed for there to be any value in doing any calculations whatever. Too many unknowns. It's all an exercise in futility.And that wasn't a conspiracy theory, it was simply a statement that if someone who is committed to evolution does the calculations and comes up with something that appears to discredit creationism or the Flood, he's not going to be very motivated to see if he can come up with a more plausible scenario that meets our requirements and the math as well. That's just human nature.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 10:13 PM

Now kids, that ain't no shit. Why do we bother? Faith won't listen, and I'll bet that the lurkers are even starting to avoid her threads.

I could certainly ask why *I* bother, since I've made a ton of terrific points about these things since I've been at EvC and get totally ignored.

In all honesty, folks, I don't know what the use is challenging Faith for evidence of the Flood. And in fact, I'm surprised the 'debate' has gone this far. Faith does not require evidence to support her (his? I'm still new here) belief, as I think she made quite obvious in this thread. To her, evidence is only secondary. If the evidence contradicts the Bible, the latter wins by default. So really, what's the point in challenging her? Mention the layered forests in Nova Scotia or the existence of angular uncomformities -- the answer is always going to be "whatever" from someone who puts faith in a literal reading of Genesis before tangible evidence.
And to Faith: if you're not going to actually deal with the evidence, but instead just shrug it off, then what's the point of addressing these science forums? What do you feel is the point of arguing for 'scientific creationism' if ultimately the words of the Bible win you over every time? Your position is entirely theological, so I do not understand why you bother doing battle on scientific grounds.

I HAVE dealt with the evidence many many times on this forum, and for a person to come along who is brand new here and make judgments like yours is completely uncalled for.

they are not terrific points, you have to deny phyics way too much for any of your points to make senseyou have to explain how something can cut out layers as they get layed down, you have to reinvision how floods work, even the largest flood works as other floods work faith!
you have to fix how layers are put down, you have to explain away ice layers as well, we have people there doing core samples every years so we know how they work
you how to explain where all the water went, when we know when the water was lower during the ice age.
nothing you have ever presented indicates there was a world wide flood, it only shows you want to believe it so you retailor the way the world works so it fits your beliefs. god made the world the way it is now, all the bible is is the beliefs of people who didn't understand the world very well