Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
This thread and all the side threads are amazing. All you need is one falsification of something, here are a whole host of them. There shouldn't ever be any dispute over the world wide flood until each of these points are refuted.
__________________ And that's all I have to say about that.
So according to the authors the flood water took 10,000 cubic miles of sand that it had picked up from somewhere two or three hundred miles away (they never say how or why there was 10,000 cubic miles of sand laying around to be picked up), and after carrying it all this distance without dumping it, spread it out over 200,000 square miles in formations that look very much like wind formed sand dunes while moving at a speed of no less than 2 miles an hour and no more than 3.75 miles an hours (a brisk walk). To cover 200,000 square miles at 3.75 miles an hour a water wave 450 miles wide would require about 5 days at 3.75 mph or 9 days at 2 mph.
OK I think I missed that Fumy was talking about someone else who thought that. I was thinking this slow speed was being claimed. Good. My feeling about these is that wind indeed had a lot to do with it. There was a great wind that dried the earth. Now as far as these perceived burrows, and trails of scorpions, and prints, how widespread are these in the area? Is it mainly in this one deposit or is it in all the sandstone in the area, and quite common?
This thread and all the side threads are amazing. All you need is one falsification of something, here are a whole host of them. There shouldn't ever be any dispute over the world wide flood until each of these points are refuted.
The problem is that global flood-believing creationists like to say repetitiously from a distance something that amounts to nothing more than "the flood happened because I say so" and stay as far away as possible from all of the threads that deal with evidence. Almost all of the young earth/global flood threads have been completely ignored, and of those where attempts were made at replies, they were often distractions from the topic. That the refutations have never been addressed let alone effectively disputed is very telling.
So because I would consider that an aborted 100 year boat building excercise was a fruitless excercise you seem to think that I would also consider Isaac test of faith also fruitless. Odd logic you have there.
I can see why you think it's odd as you seem to be far more interested in the mechanics behind these events and not the theology God intended (1 Cor 10:11). Abraham and Noah were both asked to do something pretty startling: Noah to build a whopping great huge boat for a floating zoo and Abraham to sacrifice his own son as a burnt offering (eek!). The object lesson for both Noah and Abraham was obediance, they both were required to obey irrespective oh God's later actions. Sure, there was something in it for Noah (survival) but he still had to follow God's command. And your contention that it took 100 years to build the ark has no solid biblical basis, unless you can quote me the direct scripture references.
Originally Posted by A4C
I presume from your earlier comments that you believe that the Noah flood was local not world wide. Again I ask could you explain theologically why you believe this to be so?
I'm sure you are well aware of the arguments for a local flood, but I can repeat them again for your benefit if I must.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
I just saw a documetnary on the History Channle the other day where archeologists found the sedimentary layer that came from, as they put it, an enormous flood that engulfed most of the known world at that time. I know evolutionists rely on this type of "proof" but it is compelely irrelevant to me because scientists are just as much in the dark about what happened in histroy as anyone in our current generation is. I simply believe the Bible because i have no proof that it is wrong. If in 6oo years, there is no proof that someone who exists today actually lived, then scientists would say they didn't live either. But that doesn't mean it's true. Scientists are only capable of believing what they see and nothing more. But they miss so much more because they do not trust anything other than what they can see in front of them. This tunnel vision keeps them from understanding that the unseen is far more vast than the seen, and the obvious fact that BILLIONS of people lived in the past and thousands of events happened in history that they can't see today.
Scientists are only capable of believing what they see and nothing more. But they miss so much more because they do not trust anything other than what they can see in front of them. This tunnel vision keeps them from understanding that the unseen <snip> <snip>
Put the down the tar and brush and step away from the thread! Please stop labelling all scientists as athiests, some of them happen to believe in a God, some even believe in the Christian god! Incredible I know but there you have it.
Do you honestly find this simplistic world-view actually marries up with reality?
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
Do you honestly find this simplistic world-view actually marries up with reality?
Carico is actually quite fascinating. If anything doesn't match up with her literal interpretation of the Bible, she instantly believes another unfounded assumption, no matter how crazy sounding, just too keep her world view falling apart. I always read her posts and imagine a worldview with sticky tape, glue and even chewing gum everywhere, barely held together with these desperate assumptions.
Scientists think the world is older than 6000 years, and don't think a supernatural entity created us for reasons unknown? Well, scientists are all evil atheists who are intent on disproving God. Anyone who says otherwise? Well, they must be decieved by Satan. Because the Bible just can't be wrong!
__________________ The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
- Richard P. Feynman
I just saw a documetnary on the History Channle the other day where archeologists found the sedimentary layer that came from, as they put it, an enormous flood that engulfed most of the known world at that time. I know evolutionists rely on this type of "proof" but it is compelely irrelevant to me because scientists are just as much in the dark about what happened in histroy as anyone in our current generation is. I simply believe the Bible because i have no proof that it is wrong. If in 6oo years, there is no proof that someone who exists today actually lived, then scientists would say they didn't live either. But that doesn't mean it's true. Scientists are only capable of believing what they see and nothing more. But they miss so much more because they do not trust anything other than what they can see in front of them. This tunnel vision keeps them from understanding that the unseen is far more vast than the seen, and the obvious fact that BILLIONS of people lived in the past and thousands of events happened in history that they can't see today.
Any dinosaurs in that layer?
I'm sure what these folks found is a layer that contains signs of human settlement that shows indications of being flooded.
These signs of human settlement (much still intact) of course are on top of other sediment that creationists would consider to be generated by the flood. How is this possible? Another falsification of the world wide flood.
You seem to have missed the point of the show. The show points out what we have known all along. To some people, even a local flood would seem like the 'whole world' was flooded. 'Known world' and 'whole world' are two different things but you are equating the two and trying to skew what you saw into something that doesn't match the evidence you saw.
What area of the world did they find the layer in?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. aclufightsforchristians com
NEWSFLASH: Today, 6,000,000 teachers in the US didn't do anything illegal
I just saw a documetnary on the History Channle the other day where archeologists found the sedimentary layer that came from, as they put it, an enormous flood that engulfed most of the known world at that time.
Just where did they find this layer? My guess would be that your going to pick and choose. You will accept this layer because it confirms what you believe, but you will deny the existance of the layer above it and below it.
Archeologiest tend to dig in specific locations. So how do they know that the layer they found can be found world wide?
Linear Mode
