Is there evidence for both old earth AND world-wide Flood?

kenneth558 · #1 14th February 2004, 06:39 PM

Anyone here accept BOTH old earth & worldwide flood? I'm interested in those who have some scientific (geologic, maybe?) understanding of this. I am pondering how/why a person would hold to both. Or can they? Specifically this: how would you conclude whether any particular set of data/findings is evidence for the Flood? Thank you!

Bushido216 · #2 14th February 2004, 09:21 PM

You could conclude that it is "evidence for the Flood" if it can only be explained by a Flood.

Deamiter · #3 15th February 2004, 11:39 AM

That SOUNDS like a good standard, but it's not really useful. Young earth creationists are taking evidence that has fit snugly into an old earth model and trying to explain it in the context of a literal reading of the Bible. Personally, I believe the evidence is STRONGLY toward an old earth, but I truly seek the truth in ALL areas of my faith.

In my opinion (and in the Christian groups that I study physics with) something can be considered to be convincing evidence FOR a flood if it is BETTER explained by a flood model than by an old earth. For example, here is a thread in the Open discussion forum on the Coconino sandstone formations near the Grand Canyon.
http://www.christianforums.com/t50735

This layering that a flood model claims was created in less than a year seems rather silly when you consider that the tracks that are lauded to SUPPORT the flood would have had to have been created under 300 feet of water, after MONTHS submerged for the lower layers to form, with insects and amphibians desprately trying to run away from rising waters on TOP of sand dunes that had not formed yet... (?)

The layering near the Grand Canyon has for a long time been presented as a strong point for the flood, but if you actually consider what the evidence SHOWS, it doesn't make sense at all.

On that note, there may be evidence that does not fit so snugly into an old earth picture, but I have yet to see this evidence be interpreted as a whole to support a flood. There are many snippets out there on different 'facts' that are supposed to destroy the idea of an old earth, but taken together, they often contradict each other, or contradict other hypotheses set up to explain OTHER parts of the flood.

To get back on topic, I have never heard of anybody who believed both in an old earth and a worldwide flood. To be honest, if I heard of a model that could explain consistantly (i.e. worldwide) where in the strata the flood actually happened, I would seriously consider this view, but as it stands, I believe that an old earth AND a flood are pretty incompatable.

lucaspa · #4 15th February 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Deamiter

Personally, I believe the evidence is STRONGLY toward an old earth, but I truly seek the truth in ALL areas of my faith.

In my opinion (and in the Christian groups that I study physics with) something can be considered to be convincing evidence FOR a flood if it is BETTER explained by a flood model than by an old earth. For example, here is a thread in the Open discussion forum on the Coconino sandstone formations near the Grand Canyon.
http://www.christianforums.com/t50735

This layering that a flood model claims was created in less than a year seems rather silly when you consider that the tracks that are lauded to SUPPORT the flood would have had to have been created under 300 feet of water, after MONTHS submerged for the lower layers to form, with insects and amphibians desprately trying to run away from rising waters on TOP of sand dunes that had not formed yet... (?)

What you have here is what you should do: falsification. Don't look for evidence supporting. Instead, look for evidence falsifying a theory. You have that in the Coconino sandstones. If the Flood were true, there is no way that it could have formed the Coconino Sandstones. Therefore, since true statements can't have false consequences -- a false consequence being the Coconino Sandstones -- then the statement -- worldwide Flood -- is false.

The layering near the Grand Canyon has for a long time been presented as a strong point for the flood, but if you actually consider what the evidence SHOWS, it doesn't make sense at all.

On that note, there may be evidence that does not fit so snugly into an old earth picture, but I have yet to see this evidence be interpreted as a whole to support a flood. There are many snippets out there on different 'facts' that are supposed to destroy the idea of an old earth, but taken together, they often contradict each other, or contradict other hypotheses set up to explain OTHER parts of the flood.

To get back on topic, I have never heard of anybody who believed both in an old earth and a worldwide flood. To be honest, if I heard of a model that could explain consistantly (i.e. worldwide) where in the strata the flood actually happened, I would seriously consider this view, but as it stands, I believe that an old earth AND a flood are pretty incompatable.[/quote]

lucaspa · #5 15th February 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by kenneth558

Anyone here accept BOTH old earth & worldwide flood? I'm interested in those who have some scientific (geologic, maybe?) understanding of this. I am pondering how/why a person would hold to both. Or can they? Specifically this: how would you conclude whether any particular set of data/findings is evidence for the Flood? Thank you!

In the 1820s all geologists held to an old earth and a world-wide Flood. Rev. William Buckland -- one of the foremost geologists of his day -- used the Flood only to explain superficial gravels and morraines. It was already realized that deeper strata could not be explained as the result of a Flood. If you want to read how Buckland reasoned for his strata, you would have to find a university library that had a copy of his Reliquiae Diluvianae.

Today, of course, the Flood is necessary for YEC because, without it, YECers have no way to account for the geological and fossil record in a timespan of 6,000 years. The fossil record shows evolution and the only way to try to explain this away is to have fossils deposited by a Flood. It doesn't work because a Flood would not deposit fossils in this manner, but hey, anything rather than admit the theory is falsified.

kenneth558 · #6 17th February 2004, 05:07 PM

I am beginning to suspect that believing in an old earth is scientifically incompatible with believing in a worldwide flood, Noah's ark, etc. Please help me understand otherwise if I am wrong. Just so you know, I personally have determined that I will believe what God tells me over what men (scientists, pastors, etc.) tell me. Therefore I am going to believe in a worldwide flood. Is there any way scientifically to reconcile belief in a worldwide flood with belief in an old earth? Has anyone scientifically minded done it?

lucaspa · #7 17th February 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by kenneth558

I am beginning to suspect that believing in an old earth is scientifically incompatible with believing in a worldwide flood, Noah's ark, etc. Please help me understand otherwise if I am wrong. Just so you know, I personally have determined that I will believe what God tells me over what men (scientists, pastors, etc.) tell me. Therefore I am going to believe in a worldwide flood. Is there any way scientifically to reconcile belief in a worldwide flood with belief in an old earth? Has anyone scientifically minded done it?

I told you. You have to go back to the period 1800-1820 to find a reconciliation of a worldwide flood and an old earth.

The problem I have with your "I will believe what God tells me over what men (scientists, pastors, etc.) tell me" is that you deny that God created. What did God create? The earth, right? What does science study? The earth! So, what these people are doing is finding out what God tells us. Just as much as your reading the Bible does. Even more so. The Bible was written for a particular people and a particular time. You are trying to take it out of that time and impose your meaning on it. Your meaning is not necessarily what God meant when He inspired the authors. However, reading God's Creation is directly reading what God meant to say, because God could put the evidence there directly and not go thru the limited minds of humans by inspiration. God could put what really happened and then simply wait until we were old enough and smart enough as a species to figure it out.

Look at it this way. When a 3 year old asks you how the TV works, do you tell them the whole truth, or do you tell them what they can understand and what is important to them, even if that is not technically true? Then you wait until the child is older and has learned more before you tell them the whole truth in detail.

God faced the same problem explaining how He created. He told the people of the time what they could understand and the important parts: who created and why God created. He left it up to us to figure it out when we were old enough and knew more.

So I'm a little sick of this constant idea that science is different from God and that reading the Bible is of God. Interpreting the Bible is what people tell you; or what you tell yourself. Any other view is fooling yourself.

nephilimiyr · #8 17th February 2004, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

So I'm a little sick of this constant idea that science is different from God and that reading the Bible is of God. Interpreting the Bible is what people tell you; or what you tell yourself. Any other view is fooling yourself.

I'm not going to argue anything that you have said because for the most part I agree with it but can you tell me what part of Gods book of creation shows man that he has sinned and where in that book may we find the way to salvation?

lucaspa · #9 19th February 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by nephilimiyr

but can you tell me what part of Gods book of creation shows man that he has sinned and where in that book may we find the way to salvation?

Why would you think we would find that message in the book of Creation? As Pope Pius said: "The Bible is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

I am not arguing throwing out the Bible. I am saying that the attitude that science is not of God is wrong. God is not found only in the Bible. You will not find all of God's message in Creation, but you won't find all of God's message in the Bible, either.

Beauty4Ashes · #10 3rd March 2004, 11:45 PM