Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood

[busterdog]

This explains how conventional geology interprets magnetic reversals, but how does this contradict what was said in the CMI and ICR articles about magnetic reversals? An interpretation of the data, no matter how conventionally accepted, is not the same thing as a fact.

Chuck Missler tells this story from Gulliver's Travels about the moons of mars. One of those moons is so dark that it is practically impossible to see without very modern equipment. At Swift's time, they didn't have that equipment. Swift apparently based his story on a much older story.

The question is, is the much older story based upon a near pass of the planet Mars, which would have allowed the moons to be visible? In that event, the magnetic issues are provocative.

The point: The process by which magnetic reversals happened is largely speculative. There could have been made bizarre events that messed with these fields in rapid succession.

Falling Waters, how about that "electric sky", eh?

 

[busterdog]

2. Stable matter can only exist within a small variance of the current laws of physics. Physical constants must not be more different than maybe 2% from their current values to allow stable atoms.

3. Because stable atoms obviously existed in the past, the laws of physics must have been basically the same in the past.

Would you be interested in inviting Helen Setterfield to comment?

She was here for a while until the TEs called her husband an in competent and a conscious fraud.

I understand some of the response to your point, but not all of it.

Setterfield argues that there are constants, but its not c, its h(c), for example.

 

[IrishRockhound]

This explains how conventional geology interprets magnetic reversals, but how does this contradict what was said in the CMI and ICR articles about magnetic reversals? An interpretation of the data, no matter how conventionally accepted, is not the same thing as a fact.

Apologies, but it is not my place to debate here. As an evolutionist, I may not involve myself in discussions except to provide information.

To the best of my knowledge, ICR supports a YEC perspective. This contradicts the million year dates of conventional geology.

The facts:
There is a pattern of magnetic 'stripes' on the sea floor.

The stripes form when iron minerals in lava being extruded at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, for example, line up along the current magnetic field when it cools.

There are many, many stripes recorded on the sea floor worldwide.

I have no information on the specific creationist interpretation of these facts. Again, it is not my place to debate creationist interpretations.

 

[ClearSky]

Would you be interested in inviting Helen Setterfield to comment?

She was here for a while until the TEs called her husband an in competent and a conscious fraud.

I understand some of the response to your point, but not all of it.

Setterfield argues that there are constants, but its not c, its h(c), for example.

Sure, if someone has a theory how to explain the obvious problems of different physics constants in the past, I'd like to hear it. I took two years astrophysics so I suppose I'd be able to understand the arguments.

 

[Sunrise78]

This would be quite unscientific. Do you just suspect some scientists doing this or do you have real examples?

Here's an article with a number of examples:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5274/

He is not deceiving us. But he is for sure deceiving the scientists.

I think it is more likely that the scientists are deceiving themselves.

I do not know the reason. Maybe there was no other way to create the earth.

So the only way God could have created the earth is in a way that would leave no evidence that He actually did it? That seems to contradict Romans 1:20. If the only way God could have created the earth was to do it so no one would know He had done it (indeed, if all the facts really do point against it), why then would people be without excuse if they are just following the facts? You seem to be saying that God requires people to have a blind faith, "believing what you know ain't so," as Mark Twain once put it.

Yes, I think we can agree here. But "the present is the key to the past" is a conclusion, not an assumption of science. It basically works this way:

1. Science makes observations and deducts laws of physics.

2. Stable matter can only exist within a small variance of the current laws of physics. Physical constants must not be more different than maybe 2% from their current values to allow stable atoms.

3. Because stable atoms obviously existed in the past, the laws of physics must have been basically the same in the past.

4. Therefore, when we deduct an apparent age of the earth from our observations and the laws of physics, it's its real age.

Of course, the mistake lies in 4) because the supernatural is ignored.

Which physical constants are you referring to?

Well we can observe the past. For instance we observe the past of a star when it's several light years away. Problem is just to decide whether this is the real past or a fake past.

I don't think those are the only two choices. A third choice may be that the past has been misinterpreted. That is certainly the view of such physicists/cosmologists as Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett, who start with assumptions about the nature of the universe that lead to very different conclusions about the universe's past than that of mainstream cosmologists. The options are certainly not limited to "either believe the Big Bang theory, or believe that God created light in transit and that none of what we see beyond 6,000 light years really exists."

Good question. I don't know. Maybe God does not care much about being given glory by humans?

Do you have Scripture to back that up? I think the Biblical evidence clearly points to the contrary, that God cares very much about whether or not we give Him glory.

Or he wants to test us to see whether we believe science or believe the Bible, just as He tested Adam?

But Adam was not given a choice between "believe the facts or believe what God says." Both are in agreement. What he was given was a choice based on facts - "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" (Gen. 2:17). If he ate, he would die. The correct choice that Adam should have made was not ultimately, "Well, I know that I'm not really going to die if I eat this fruit, but I'll choose to believe God anyway," but "I know that I AM going to die if I eat this fruit, and I choose to believe what God says."

As I said above, faith is not belief in spite of the facts, but belief based upon facts. God does not call us to "believe what we know ain't so" - He calls us to believe based upon carefully evaluating the evidence.

 

[ClearSky]

Here's an article with a number of examples:

I know the argumentation in the article, but it does not back the claim. Scientific results are not "discarded as invalid when they don't fit in the geological timescale". In the examples mentioned by the article, scientists corrected their data because their measurement were corrected by other measurements, not because the data didn't fit the theory.

In reality, 'doctoring' data to fit a theory is considered unscientific by all scientists. If someone is caught doing this, his reputation in the scientific community is gone forever.

If the only way God could have created the earth was to do it so no one would know He had done it (indeed, if all the facts really do point against it), why then would people be without excuse if they are just following the facts?

Of course they are not "without excuse". Not even the most extreme creationist websites claim that belief in creationism is required for salvation.

God exposes us to this choice, but it is no choice between morally "right" or "wrong". It can be "right" to believe in Creationism and it can be "right" not to believe in it. It is a personal choice, not a moral one.

Which physical constants are you referring to?

Planck's constant, the Electron charge, the Electron mass, the electric Permittivity, the Magnetic constant, and several more. For the existence of higher order atoms above hydrogen it is required that those constants have their current values within a 2% margin.

I don't think those are the only two choices. A third choice may be that the past has been misinterpreted. That is certainly the view of such physicists/cosmologists as Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett, who start with assumptions about the nature of the universe that lead to very different conclusions about the universe's past than that of mainstream cosmologists.

Yes, but as I repeatedly pointed out their conclusions contradict our astronomical observations, such as the observed speed of events in the universe. So we don't have this third choice. Even when we assume that our observations are all wrong, it must be explained why the are wrong. The alternative cosmologies lack such explanation.

It is a requirement for a scientific theory to be consistent with our observations. In that sense, alternative cosmologies by Humphreys etc. are no scientific theories.

I think the Biblical evidence clearly points to the contrary, that God cares very much about whether or not we give Him glory.

Do you know the place in Scripture for this evidence? For all I know, God never directly required that we give him Glory. In Numeri He gave precise instructions how to worship Him and how to sacrifice animals the correct way, but that was not for His glory - I don't think He needs sacrifices - but just to install a firm ritual for his believers.

But Adam was not given a choice between "believe the facts or believe what God says." Both are in agreement. What he was given was a choice based on facts - "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" (Gen. 2:17). If he ate, he would die. The correct choice that Adam should have made was not ultimately, "Well, I know that I'm not really going to die if I eat this fruit, but I'll choose to believe God anyway," but "I know that I AM going to die if I eat this fruit, and I choose to believe what God says."

Adam was not given a choice between God or the facts. He was given a choice of believing God, or believing the serpent.

God said: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

The serpent said: "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

So, both lied to him, and both also told the truth. God lied because Adam didn't die in the day he ate. He couldn't kill Adam at that point because Adam had not yet begotten sons and daughters. But God also told the truth because Adam eventually died, although a long time afterwards. The serpent lied because Adam's disobedience led to his sure death, but it also told the truth because his eyes were opened and he knew good and evil.

Just like believing or not in creation, Adam's was not a moral choice. It couldn't be because Adam didn't know
good and evil before he ate from that tree.

 

[HypnoToad]

So, both lied to him, and both also told the truth. God lied because Adam didn't die in the day he ate.

So totally wrong. God does not lie. (Num.23:19, Titus 1:2, Heb.6:18)

First off, Adam's spiritual death was instant. Second, "in the day" is a Hebrew idiom that doesn't require the consequence to occur at the same time of the act. It only means that the events that will bring about the consequence will be set in motion at the time of the act. The degredation of the body began that very day - the process that leads to physical death (aging) began at that moment.

 

[busterdog]

So totally wrong. God does not lie. (Num.23:19, Titus 1:2, Heb.6:18)

First off, Adam's spiritual death was instant. Second, "in the day" is a Hebrew idiom that doesn't require the consequence to occur at the same time of the act. It only means that the events that will bring about the consequence will be set in motion at the time of the act. The degredation of the body began that very day - the process that leads to physical death (aging) began at that moment.

One translation of the Hebrew:

"dying you shall die"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dying+you+shall+die&btnG=Google+Search

 

[FallingWaters]

One translation of the Hebrew:

"dying you shall die"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dying+you+shall+die&btnG=Google+Search

What point are you trying to make?

 

[ClearSky]

One translation of the Hebrew:

"dying you shall die"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dying+you+shall+die&btnG=Google+Search

The literal translation is:

In the day (Yom) that you eat, dying you shall die.

"Yom" is usually a day (24 hours), but can also mean "the time" or "the moment". In Genesis, "Yom" is the time of each creation day. "Dying" is used as an intensification, that's why it's translated with "surely".

As to the argument "God does not lie": this is a difficult question. At the time God said this to Adam, I think He meant it. He probably just noticed later that He could not kill Adam at this point because Adam had no descendants yet. So, in a strict sense of the word, it was not a real lie. Only the events later made it a lie.

You can also say that it was not a real lie because Adam's dying began that day, it just ended some 900 years later when he really died. However with this interpretation you're already a little away from what God literally said.

The "spiritual death" interpretation makes no sense at all to me. With such interpretations you can remove the meaning from anything by just calling it "spiritual" and not "real". When God said something, He usually meant it as he said it. Either you take the Bible literal or you don't, but if you take it literal, you need to accept also the parts that you don't like.

 

[HypnoToad]

As to the argument "God does not lie": this is a difficult question.

How is it difficult?

Scripture is CLEAR - He does NOT lie, period.

Statements don't get simpler than that.

At the time God said this to Adam, I think He meant it. He probably just noticed later that He could not kill Adam at this point because Adam had no descendants yet. So, in a strict sense of the word, it was not a real lie. Only the events later made it a lie.

An omniscient God that "just noticed later" He couldn't kill Adam? You really mean to tell me that you believe in a God that is that stupid?

You can also say that it was not a real lie because Adam's dying began that day, it just ended some 900 years later when he really died. However with this interpretation you're already a little away from what God literally said.

I can, and did, say that. And it's not "a little away" from what was said. "In the day" doesn't mean the same in English and Hebrew. Different languages have different figures of speech and idioms.

The "spiritual death" interpretation makes no sense at all to me. With such interpretations you can remove the meaning from anything by just calling it "spiritual" and not "real". When God said something, He usually meant it as he said it. Either you take the Bible literal or you don't, but if you take it literal, you need to accept also the parts that you don't like.

God did mean it - and "spiritual" is just as real as the physical world. I honestly am shocked that a Christian would say otherwise. Scripture says "God is spirit," (Jn.4:24); so you take that as saying, "God isn't real"?? I am shocked that a Christian speaks as though they've never heard of "spiritual death".

 

[ClearSky]

"spiritual" is just as real as the physical world. I honestly am shocked that a Christian would say otherwise. Scripture says "God is spirit," (Jn.4:24); so you take that as saying, "God isn't real"?? I am shocked that a Christian speaks as though they've never heard of "spiritual death".

I think you're now getting a little ad personam in your arguments - and you know very well what the discussion about "spiritual death" was about.

You claimed that "God didn't mean 'die', He meant 'spiritually die'". However, God said "die", not "spiritually die". I think we both know that death and spiritual death are definitely not the same.

So you're insisting that God didn't mean what He said.

I beg to differ.

 

[HypnoToad]

I think you're now getting a little ad personam in your arguments - and you know very well what the discussion about "spiritual death" was about.

No, I don't "know what it was about" - you said spiritual death is not real. I say it is, as Scripture teaches.

You claimed that "God didn't mean death, He meant spiritual death".

No, I did not. I NEVER said, "God didn't mean death." That is a distortion of what I said. I'm saying the term "death" can refer to spiritual AND physical, and neither one is specified, so we have to look at context and other Scripture to find out what is meant.

However, God said "death", not "spiritual death". I think we both know that death and spiritual death are not the same.

"Death" CAN, in fact, be "spiritual". You are confusing the terms "death" and "physical death" as identical terms.

So you're insisting that God didn't mean what He said.

I beg to differ.

No, He absolutely meant death. And I've already shown that both physical and spiritual fit the passage without any "lying" being necessary.

You still have to answer the questions about your position. If God lies, as you claim, then multiple Scriptures are also lies. If God didn't see until later that He couldn't kill Adam, then God is not omniscient. Not only is He not omniscient, but darn near stupid. Where does Scripture teach that spiritual death is any "less real" than physical death?

 

[ClearSky]

No, I don't "know what it was about" - you said spiritual death is not real. I say it is, as Scripture teaches.

Ok. I made a difference between real death and spiritual death. But let's change this into 'physical death' and 'spiritual death' - I think this avoids such misunderstandings.

This doesn't change what I said: nowhere in scripture will you find any mention of your claim that Adam and Eve 'died spiritually'.

You still have to answer the questions about your position. If God lies, as you claim, then multiple Scriptures are also lies. If God didn't see until later that He couldn't kill Adam, then God is not omniscient.

Yes, that's a correct conclusion, and is also my position. The Pentateuch is full of descriptions how often God is surprised and taken aback by human actions. Starting with Adam, and continuing with all His problems with the tribes of Israel. You can hardly have missed this when you read the Pentateuch.

Scripture does not lie. And it is, in my opinion, mostly meant literally. The obvious conclusion is that God can not be omniscient.

I would go even further: Scripture, although it does not lie, can contain false statements. This can happen when it reports the thoughts and words of fallible humans. Scripture is true - the person really said or thought that - but the statement itself of course is false when that person was wrong. That is the reason why thousands of statements in scripture are apparently false, down to the numerical value of Pi.

I hope this clears up my position.

 

[HypnoToad]

It clears it up alright. You believe in a God who can't tell the truth sometimes because He's too stupid to know better. You believe in Scripture that is no more trustworthy than the National Inquirer.

 

[FallingWaters]

It clears it up alright. You believe in a God who can't tell the truth sometimes because He's too stupid to know better. You believe in Scripture that is no more trustworthy than the National Inquirer.

And all for the motivating purpose of being able to declare that modern scientists are right about billions of years.

 

[ClearSky]

The basis of Christian faith is Scripture. Within Scripture, the basis of what we know about God are His words and acts.

As a Christian I believe that I have to accept God's words and God's acts, and not interpret them away when I don't like them.

If you think otherwise, it's ok, you're free to chose your own flavor of faith. God will accept you no matter how you understand Scripture.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Just a reminder to stick to the topic and NOT address another member's faith...

In other words: Do NOT question another member's faith or christianity!​

 

[LutheranChick]

Getting back to the topic- I personally do not believe that it would matter what kind of evidence God left behind to show proof of a global flood, or creation, or any other miraculous thing that God has done. He could have inscribed on the face of a cliff, "I did all these things- Love, God" and sinful man would not believe it.

It is man's inherent, sinful nature to reject God- therefore rejecting ANY kind of evidence that would prove that God did anything. The only reason people believe in creation is because they have faith - which is given to them by the Holy Spirit. You can argue all day about people who believe in "theistic evolution" or people who claim to believe in God yet they reject creation.

My question is- do they really have faith? If they have thrown out that part of the Bible, or 'reinterpreted' it, then it's not much of a stretch to continue throwing out (or reinterpreting) everything else that does not 'make sense'. (Like the fact that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again- a vital belief for salvation). I believe these people are in serious danger of losing what faith they do have.

Man's logic is flawed, and cannot possibly understand God's ways. That is clearly stated in the Bible- many many times.

 

[Paul365]

You can argue all day about people who believe in "theistic evolution" or people who claim to believe in God yet they reject creation.

My question is- do they really have faith?

For answering that question (I hope this is allowed in this forum): Yes, we all have faith. We only don't share your particular interpretation of the Bible.