DINOSAURS! Noah's Flood & other awesome questions.

[RickG]

There is no flood in that model is there?

Didn't say there was, I was talking about rain.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no flood in that model is there?

There may well have been one associated with the end of the last ice age--What people are calling the "Black Sea" flood.

 

[RickG]

Nor are naturalistic models / conjectures....

So the physical evidence of God's creation is a lie? I tend to believe God's creation over the muses of men who had no idea at their time about anything in their physical surroundings.

 

[Hieronymus]

Didn't say there was, I was talking about rain.

You said before the flood.
(never mind)

 

[Hieronymus]

So the physical evidence of God's creation is a lie?

Naturalism is a lie.
It's a belief.

 

[RickG]

You said before the flood.
(never mind)

Yes, 4.5 billion years before the flood described in the Genesis account.

 

[RickG]

Naturalism is a lie.
It's a belief.

Opinion noted and dismissed through my background and experience in the earth sciences.

 

[Hieronymus]

Opinion noted and dismissed through my background and experience in the earth sciences.

Well, naturalism IS a belief.
And you know it.

 

[RickG]

Well, naturalism IS a belief.
And you know it.

No, its is real and you choose to ignore it. If the creation account is literally factual, then why did God create a earth full of evidence to the contrary?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But the levels of strata we find show more evidence of rapid layering and rapid erosion. Along with rapid burials of plants and animals. I do agree that we are shown glimpses of the stratification process, but what we have to look at in the geologic column do not show that what we see is what created it. A global flood seems a lot more likely of a scenario to get what we have.

No they don't. No it doesn't.

See? My words counter your words.

Now, your challenge is to go beyond mere words. What evidence do you cite to support "more evidence of rapid layering"? What evidence is there that a global flood seems a lot more likely of a scenario?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think simply that there is and has been a narrative that has evidence for but is not necessarily 100% proven. There is not a missing link for any animal or human in my opinion. . . .

THe trouble is, no matter what evidence you are shown, you feel that your mere opinion is enough to dismiss it.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

P1 Jesus wouldn't use the Genesis stories in His preaching unless He agreed with my interpretation of them.
P2 Jesus used the Genesis stories in His preaching.
C Jesus agreed with my interpretation of them.

See how lame that is? It would work with anybody's interpretation so it proves nothing.

Premise 1 that you quote is false, so your conclusion must be false also.

Now you're getting confused. Are you claiming that Jesus endorses the flood as an historical event or endorses your claims about the text of the flood story?

What exactly are my claims about the text of the flood story that you feel Jesus would have to correct me about if He were here to talk to me about it (that's not a trick question - I just want to know where my apparent error lies)?

 

[Speedwell]

Premise 1 that you quote is false, so your conclusion must be false also.

In what respect?

What exactly are my claims about the text of the flood story that you feel Jesus would have to correct me about if He were here to talk to me about it (that's not a trick question - I just want to know where my apparent error lies)?

I don't know what your claims are. The person to whom the post was originally directed claims that the text is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration--and that Jesus wouldn't have quoted the text unless He had been of the same opinion.

The point I was making is that logically, the same argument could be made for any interpretation of scripture and thus proves nothing.

 

[Speedwell]

Looking back, I see it was you I was responding to--how time flies. My apologies if I have confused your claims with someone else's.

But the point remains the same. No matter what your claims about the text are, right or wrong, the "Jesus quotes Genesis" argument doesn't prove anything.

 

[Stillicidia]

I hope this is the fullness,
Genesis 1:28
The word "replenish"
Dinosaurs were the only things around for the many millions of years which scientists suggest according to fossils, but not anything else. Many fossils of "ancient animals" are still alive, and they thought they were extinct.
The reason they died, and the reason their bones are not decayed to dust, is a flash freeze over the whole earth.
God blew on the earth and all of it froze.
The reason all of the earth flash-froze, was because there was an unending heavy rain, which dinosaurs needed, even as an alligator would have flesh crumble away if they didn't have water on them for a day.
This is also supported in scripture as the frozen earth melted, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2
This is also supported, because before the flood of Noah's Ark, those people survived for water by dew on the grass.
There was once water in the atmosphere rather than relatively none today, which we're used to, and this also explains where that flood had come from.
A meteor did not kill the dinosaurs, nor did it split the single landmass.
The reason God killed the dinosaurs with a flash freeze, was because when Satan fell he caused violence on the earth, and the dinosaurs started eating each other.
This time of the ice age lasted many many millions of years, and Satan sat upon the earth in boredom. It melted suddenly, and the things God created therewith were abrupt, even the time of the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters was relatively abrupt, having man put on the earth, and Satan had already known of man from his time in Heaven.

 

[RickG]

I hope this is the fullness,
Genesis 1:28
The word "replenish"
Dinosaurs were the only things around for the many millions of years which scientists suggest according to fossils, but not anything else.

Scientists suggest no such thing. There were many other animals around besides dinosaurs during the Mesozoic Era.

Many fossils of "ancient animals" are still alive, and they thought they were extinct.

Same family, but not species.

The reason they died, and the reason their bones are not decayed to dust, is a flash freeze over the whole earth.
God blew on the earth and all of it froze.

You just made that up. The bible says no such thing.

The reason all of the earth flash-froze, was because there was an unending heavy rain, which dinosaurs needed, even as an alligator would have flesh crumble away if they didn't have water on them for a day.
This is also supported in scripture as the frozen earth melted, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2

That's the problem I have with creation science. If totally off-the-wall-made-up-stuff has to be presented in order to justify one's scripture interpretation, what does that suggest about the validly of the scripture?

This is also supported, because before the flood of Noah's Ark, those people survived for water by dew on the grass.

So there were no rivers or lakes?

There was once water in the atmosphere rather than relatively none today, which we're used to, and this also explains where that flood had come from.

Are you aware that the entire moisture content in Earth's atmosphere completely overturns every 7 to 10 days?

A meteor did not kill the dinosaurs, nor did it split the single landmass.

The dinosaurs were all ready on a sever decline before bolide impact.

The reason God killed the dinosaurs with a flash freeze, was because when Satan fell he caused violence on the earth, and the dinosaurs started eating each other.

Where does the bible say that?

 

[Stillicidia]

I conveyed hidden / unknown things,
and I used scripture where I could.
Only God could convey this, yet you think it is terribly wrong.
Assuming someone made something up, is also making something up.

 

[RickG]

I conveyed hidden / unknown things,
and I used scripture where I could.
Only God could convey this, yet you think it is terribly wrong.
Assuming someone made something up, is also making something up.

Sir, I have an M.S. that includes that very area of science. Your argument breaks every single law of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, nor are any of the biblical suggestions presented supported by any biblical scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

Another question you should ask yourself is, why are people telling you that the theory of evolution (which has nothing to do with theories about the age of the Earth, btw) is assumed by the scientific community to be a fact? Scientific theories are ever "assumed as fact."

A lot is assumed to be facts.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sir, I have an M.S. that includes that very area of science. Your argument breaks every single law of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, nor are any of the biblical suggestions presented supported by any biblical scripture.

Aren't broad universal generalities in opposition to those laws?
What about appealing to educational authority? Aren't there
laws against that as well?