Noahs Flood

quote:

---

So are you saying, it's a shut and locked case coyote? In every case? There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets?

---

No, there's no definite problem with comets. Just the possibility that there might be a problem.

quote:

---

At the very least, there is still debate on these issues.

---

Not in science there isn't. All you have is religious apologists trying to force the evidence to fit their dogma. And talking of apologists weren't you going to start a thread presenting Josh McDowell's "evidence" ?

Hi Flyer,I know your post has already received three replies, but one point you made deserves more detailed treatment: You're talking about uniformitarianism, and it doesn't mean what you think it does. The concept was introduced by Charles Lyell in the first half of the 19th century, and it means that the same forces and processes at work in the world today were also at work throughout the entire history of the Earth. In addition to slow processes like deposition and erosion, Lyell's famous book, Principles of Geology (Darwin took it with him on the Beagle), included earthquakes, volcanoes and floods. Today we also include processes of which Lyell was unaware, such as glaciers and asteroid and comet impacts.The term uniformitarianism fell into disuse within geology long ago, probably because it is so easy to misinterpret as excluding the possibility of sudden change. But that's not what it means. Uniformitarianism refers to the array of forces at work, not the rate of change.So no, scientists are not changing their views about the forces that might have been at work changing our planet in the past. They still think that erosion, deposition, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, glaciers and impacts are what shapes our planet. And... Things that actually happened leave evidence behind, and looking back four or five thousand years, there is no evidence of "something big" happening.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

No, in regards to an old earth there is no debate.There are only creationists who refuse to accept the scientific evidence because of religious beliefs.In science, the debate was ended over 200 years ago. All that is being done now is working out the precise details.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Catholics fit... Because the entire planet has not been covered in water since the dawn of mankind. Case closed. The Flood could not have been global. If it just had to have been a global flood, then the Bible is wrong.But its not necessarily global. The intended audience of Genesis did not have the concept of the whole planet like we do so their understanding would be quite different. When they talked about the earth they were not talking about the planet in its entirety. The story could have been talking about a local flood. Similiarly, there's arguments on the wiping out of mankind not being every single person on the planet, but a local group of men instead.As far as the New Testament referencing the Flood... A reference is not necessarily a claim of actualness. For example, if I wrote a letter to some fellow nerds that reference the Prime Directive from Star Trek they would all understand my point. Now, that doesn't mean that any one of us actually thinks that Star Trek was real. Similiarly, even if it was something that our culture considered real (or didn't know), say something like Paul Revere's Ride, our mention of it as if it were a real thing doesn't necessitate that it really did happen.So like when Jesus said that just like Jonah was in the whale for 3 days...yada yada, that doesn't necessarily mean that a man really lived in a big fish for 3 days. He could have been reference a known fiction, or referenceing something his audience considered real all the while not endorsing it as actually happening.Make sense? The story of Noah borrows a lot from the earlier surrounding cultures. It has been heavily influenced. Are you familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh? I don't think what we have for Noah's story is exactly the way things went down. It might not have happened at all. But assuming it did happen, I doubt the specifics are accurate. There's no way he had 2 of every single kind of animal on a boat... Maybe some guy did make a boat for a flood and put a bunch of different animals on it. As the story got passed down, it must have gotten embelished.If you care to read about the Catholic's take on it, here's a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the Deluge:CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Deluge

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

You have not said how "comets" are "problems" with "millions of years".Please do so.

It was awfully amusing about a decade ago to watch Answers in Genesis evolve from their position of "there is no Kuiper Belt of comets!!1!" through "well, there aren't but a few of them!1!!" to silence on the subject.There's an Oort Cloud out there, Flyer. The Kuiper Belt had no known members 20 years ago, and now over a thousand are cataloged. It's just difficult to see things that are darker than coal and several billion miles away.So no, there is no "problem" with comets.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Seriously, ALL those sciences have proved an old earth...long ago. The amazing technologies they have produced utterly and absolutely rely on it, and would not work without it. The amount of discourse here depends entirely on Biblical literalists who can't/won't/mayn't admit that a young earth is impossible. Fanatical religious views always tend to clash with reality For reliable answers and the best estimation of the nature of the material world, only interpretation by the scientific method has proved useful. For an understanding of the spiritual world, no evidence is needed - only faith is required - so I don't see why you bother with evidence, except to prey upon people of faith AND ignorance. The shuttle couldn't launch with a young earth built into the calculations. Almost any discussion among scientists will necessarily involve qualifying terms like those you mentioned. Not being satisfied with the knowledge they've already achieved, or that Goddidit, they theorize answers to new questions. This process begins with might haves, could haves, etc.

You're right, it was quite off topic. I'll try watch out better. The quote I quoted rather inspired me... I'd love to reply, but I'm afraid it would be a bit off topic...

Oh, don't spoil it for me. I really wanted him to say what he thought the "problem" was, and now you've scared him off.

Exactly! I want to hear him say what those "might haves" and "could haves" in TV programs on astronomy were actually about. Should we presume they were saying things like this:

• "The Earth might orbit the Sun in a year."
• "Venus' orbit might lie inside the Earth's."
• "The Sun could have a greater mass than Jupiter."
• "The universe might have begun with the Big Bang."
• "Andromeda could be around 140,000 light years in diameter."
• "In the early universe light might have traveled at the speed of light."

--Percy