Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,263 Year: 5,520/9,624 Month: 545/323 Week: 42/143 Day: 4/11 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 48 of 432 (642983)
12-03-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
11-29-2011 5:09 AM

My General Understanding
Because the history is not repeatable, to an extent it is speculation, but from what the bible says, there was more water in the atmosphere then than now, as well as super-hot water coming from beneath the earth, and it is easy to show water exists beneath the earth.
It's important to take a look of a map of the globe without any water on it. The mid-oceanic ridge is much more explainable given a massive catastrophism, IMO, in that this explains the continents splitting. You can trace the continents being split by the ridge.
If you look at the continental shelves, there are double continental shelves visible.
I have not dug too deeply into this topic personally, but I do not think that it is a big problem, it is certainly credulous compared to a rock sprouting feelers, for example, whereby such a proposal is completely invented, 100% speculation, without any facts to look at.
Believing in a flood is not as big a deal as evolutionists want to make out. We also believe that life produces life. Abiogenesis, I would say, take much more faith to believe in, than a large flood, which is not just possible but easily probable.
These are my own opinions more than arguments, from the explanation I deem the best one.
I think the fossils, the continents, super-hot water, preservations of polystrate fossils, preservations of a vast number of kinds that have extant counterparts today, well......basically I don't see any problem as to why a flood is not conceivable. I won't argue this any more than I would argue that we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, it is futile.
The reasonings against a flood I deem pretty tenuous. They are invented to thwart the flood rather than coming from any genuine attempt to falsify it. At the end of the day, for me it is much more reasonable to believe life comes from life and that X produces X, as the facts clearly show.
It should also be noted that the attitude that there can't be any supernatural answers for the problem is decidedly odd, considering it was a miraculous event, according to the bible. To have us believe that God would create a flood but could not then handle the consequences and therefore not be able to save a remnant of life on earth I regard as absurd.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 5:09 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Trixie, posted 12-03-2011 5:19 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 62 by DWIII, posted 12-04-2011 7:31 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 75 of 432 (643390)
12-06-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Trixie
12-03-2011 5:19 PM

Re: My General Understanding
Yeah, I'm not totally against you on that. For me, it's all about the logic. There is an element, more of logic, than science. Maybe a bit of science.
The creationists want to put it under "science" because it is the chief, the king. For me, truth matters more to me. The truth is that the flood has scientific elements, but also it obviously isn't a scientific proposal, it is more of a model to explain the facts, according to our beiefs. So I would not be determined to teach the flood as science, I would only encourage genuine critical thinking.
What is the problem in saying, "Here is the science, not everyone holds to that, but you do your own thinking, and reading, as you have freewill."
It's just reality in this world, that people are compelled to believe certain things, sometimes for reasons they can't clearly explain. Sometimes they have good reasons, even if you don't agree they are good.
Personally I don't think I would try and force something like the flood into science. For me, the reasons are compelling. Ultimately it is a matter of belief but I have enough facts to convince me.
We have the same facts. A lot of Creation Scientists do not hold to the uniformitarian view of things but I don't think they would rubbish the efforts of the evolutionists. The usual understanding is that the present-day efforts are continued from what they have inherited, scientifically speaking.
I am in no doubt that the evolutionary scientists are genuine, that they do their work genuinely. Al that concerns me is truth, which is not always a scientific matter.
I think there is evidence that should follow if there was a flood, which is enough for me to believe it happened. I am convinced of that, and I don't think I can change that. If you are persuaded by something, that it is true, you don't really choose to believe it, you simply believe it.
Sometimes I feel I am being attacked for having a certain colour of eyes, because having blue eyes is offensive. It's a strange thing - it's supposed to be about tolerance these days, but I assure you, I can't change my mind any more than my eye-colour!
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Trixie, posted 12-03-2011 5:19 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by edge, posted 12-06-2011 5:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024