Global Flood

[Baggins]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html

This page here has lots about why the Mt St Helen's ash flows are not a good indicator for the speed of general sedimentation. i.e. of sandstones, limestones, shales etc, the sedimentary rocks that make up a far larger part of thegeological record.

 

[DArceri]

Do you really believe life formed from non-living material?

You are formed from non-living material so why shouldn't early life be.



I have no idea about that, I was just speculating. I am agnostic about the origins of the universe, but I suspect that god is not neede in that equation.




Why does a universe need a god to start it, but a god doesn't need anything to start it?

The God of the bible is eternal. The problem is, He does not fit into "your concept" of what's real. Thus you will never believe in Him or of Him.

 

[Baggins]

One thing I do know, evidence does not equate to proof. Evidence is just pieces of a complex puzzle that scientist try to fit into the mode of their reality to justify an existence without a supernatural being. But my evidence of God is existence itself. God created the formulas for the mind and soul itself. Life is just a small part of it.

One thing I do know is that science doesn't deal in proof, mathematics does that.

If something was proved in science it would mean that no new evidence could be admitted and the theory would become dogma.

Religion does that but not science. All theories in science are provisional waiting on further evidence.

Your evidence of god is nothing more than a personal feeling, what good is that to me?

If you have a better explanation of the evidence let's hear it, but make it scientific.

Hint: god is not scientific.

I will post here what I just posted on another thread. It is when they try and enter the realms of science that creationists may make themselves appear ill-educated. If you don't know much about science learn it.

It is pointless coming here asking questions from a creationist web site that have been answered hundreds of times on this very board, and then insinuate that you won't accpet evidence because you have a higher truth.

If you have a higher truth why are you trying ( and failing dismally ) to discredit science on christmas day, haven't you got better things you could be doing?

 

[DArceri]

All theories in science are provisional waiting on further evidence.

While you wait on further evidence to prove the universes existance, you will be dead. You are gambling on, what I believe, is your eternal life based on the evidences you "believe" are going to prove out right. I don't have that kind of faith in myself or man. I'll go with GOD.

 

[Baggins]

Do you really believe life formed from non-living material?
The God of the bible is eternal. The problem is, He does not fit into "your concept" of what's real. Thus you will never believe in Him or of Him.

It is not just my concept, god is not natural, he is untestable and therefore not part of reality. His existence is therefore a moot point.

Neither of us have any evidence as to his existence, you choose to have faith and believe, I chose not to have faith and I don't believe.

I still don't see what part trying, and failing, to discredit science has in your faith.

Is your faith not strong enough to withstand science? Can't you just say god and my faith in it is out side of the natural world and therefore outside of science?

Why do you feel the need to try and discredit science as well, will it make your faith stronger? All it appears to do is make you look a bit desperate and illogical..

 

[Baggins]

While you wait on further evidence to prove the universes existance, you will be dead. You are gambling on, what I believe, is your eternal life based on the evidences you "believe" are going to prove out right. I don't have that kind of faith in myself or man. I'll go with GOD.

So, why would you assume that I want eternal life? Have you ever considered what eternal life actually means? The idea fills me with horror.

When I die I fully expect to cease to exist, I fully expect we will all cease to exist, I have no fear of this and no desire for it to be otherwise.

You have no more idea what happens after death than I do, you fear death so you hope for eternal life, I fear eternal life.

 

[DArceri]

So, why would you assume that I want eternal life? Have you ever considered what eternal life actually means? The idea fills me with horror.

When I die I fully expect to cease to exist, I fully expect we will all cease to exist, I have no fear of this and no desire for it to be otherwise.

You have no more idea what happens after death than I do, you fear death so you hope for eternal life, I fear eternal life.

From my understanding of your comment, you think God is not going to be just and fair to you. In actuality, it's just the opposite, He will be just and fair and that is the thought that scares you the most, whether you want to admit it or not. If I didn't believe in Him, the thought that He could actually exist would scare me too. Choosing to deny God only deserves eternal damnation from God's perspective. It is never too late to come to Him. Some things just can't be explained scientifically and I hope and pray everyone comes to experience Him in their lifetime like I have. (P.S. Eternal life with Him is called Heaven, not Hell.)

 

[Dal M.]

In actuality, it's just the opposite, He will be just and fair and that is the thought that scares you the most, whether you want to admit it or not.

Actually, what's going on is that you, Darceri, fully realize that all that awaits you after death is oblivion, that you've wasted your life on religious pursuits, and that your only hope for justifying your lifestyle is getting others to participate in a belief which even you now know is a sham.

See how stupid that sounded?

Don't pretend to be a mind-reader, Darceri.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Nobody ceases to exist. Our spirits are eternal as we all are made in the image of God

Rather depends on your philosophical and etymological understanding of what "Hell" is, doesn't it?

 

[Steezie]

The idea of a global flood is scientifically impossible for a laundry list of reasons.

There are no distinguishing geological markers for a region-wide going back to biblical times and is geologically impossible.

The flood is a story to teach a lesson, nothing more

 

[Baggins]

From my understanding of your comment, you think God is not going to be just and fair to you. In actuality, it's just the opposite, He will be just and fair and that is the thought that scares you the most, whether you want to admit it or not. If I didn't believe in Him, the thought that He could actually exist would scare me too. Choosing to deny God only deserves eternal damnation from God's perspective. It is never too late to come to Him. Some things just can't be explained scientifically and I hope and pray everyone comes to experience Him in their lifetime like I have. (P.S. Eternal life with Him is called Heaven, not Hell.)

It is not that I don't believe he will be fair to me I just don't believe he exists. I don't believe any god/gods exist. I can't be afraid of something I don't believe in. It is like telling me that I am scared of dragons or hobgoblins.

Someone has a rather good quote as their signature on this site, it says:

We are both aethiests I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all those other gods you will understand why I reject yours.

I think that sums it up rather well.

I am glad your religion gives you comfort and makes you look forward to everlasting life, but I can honestly say I love life and I I don't fear death. I have looked at the situation rationally and I can't see how souls and life everlasting make any sense what so ever.

I believe I exist and I believe that between the period 13/11/1964 to the day of my death I will always exist. Just because we experience time liearly doesn't mean that it is a linear concept.

I will have everlasting life in as much that in small patch of space time I will always exist. In space time I am being born growing up and going to school etc, that is still there, I just can't experience it any more.

So perhaps I do believe in everlasting life ( at least until the death of the universe ) I just don't think I will be able experience it.

 

[united4Peace]

Sure, we all experience Hell, in our own way. Hell on earth.
God doesnt send us to a "Hell" however. God doesnt work like that.
And the God of the OT that people used to fight wars just as they do now is a "tribal" God.
"My God is better than your God"
Has been like that since the beginning of time because people cant accept that God or a creator has created all things as equal...we arent above anyone or anything...all of nature is a part of God's creation and all of nature is dependant upon each other. We need air to breath do we not? We need water to drink.
But no people have this thing where we want to be
"Better than" and have "God" on our side and against others.

I believe God loves us all and even if we dont believe in Her, She still believes in us.

 

[Quantic]

I believe I exist and I believe that between the period 13/11/1964 to the day of my death I will always exist. Just because we experience time liearly doesn't mean that it is a linear concept.

I will have everlasting life in as much that in small patch of space time I will always exist. In space time I am being born growing up and going to school etc, that is still there, I just can't experience it any more.

So perhaps I do believe in everlasting life ( at least until the death of the universe ) I just don't think I will be able experience it.

I just want to say that what you wrote above is a very enlightened, scientific way of thinking about one's life; it gave me a nice warm feeling inside!

Also, your previous quote (which I didn't quote) is from Richard Dawkins, who is one of my current heros right up there with Carl Sagan. Have a good holiday.

 

[Baggins]

I just want to say that what you wrote above is a very enlightened, scientific way of thinking about one's life; it gave me a nice warm feeling inside!

Also, your previous quote (which I didn't quote) is from Richard Dawkins, who is one of my current heros right up there with Carl Sagan. Have a good holiday.

Thank you for your kind words.

The first time I thought of that concept, I doubt it is original but I don't think I read it anywhere, it gave me a warm feeling to because I am still interacting with all my loved ones whose bit of space time is no longer coincident with mine somewhere out there.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

GETTING BACK TO THE FLOOD:

The majority of the geologic community believe that low energy processes and long time periods account for the geologic record. Creationists believe that high energy processes and short periods of time account for the geologic record.

But this viewpoint was falsified nearly 200 years ago.

PLEASE READ THESE TWO ACCOUNTS:

Mt. St. Helens Explosion Gives Creation Evidence
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=7

Mt. St. Helens doesn't give any evidence for YEC but I will address that later.

The Grand Canyon, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95

Let's look at the nonsense that Dr. Dino spews out on the page you link.

Standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain stupid.

The deposition of layers of the Colorado Plateau that are revealed in the GC is in general fairly well understood. The time scale is actually hundreds of millions of years. What is stupid is for someone like Hovind who is totally ignorant of geology to claim that a complex series of layers such as those found in the GC could have been largely or even partly deposited by a mythical global flood. Here is a diagram from This Site. It greatly simplies the picture as each of the layers shown has complex sub-structures.

A more complete picture of the geology of the GC can be found in the Book Grand Canyon Geology. The book is quite detailed and making sense of it requires at least an elementary knowledge of geology.

A series of good web pages on the creationist verse real geologists interpretation of the Colorado Plateau starts HERE. It continues HERE and HERE. Jon Wolf also has a good Web Page on the subject.

then Dr. Dino gives us this gem

The line that “it had been carved out by a river” made absolutely no sense to me, but what puzzled me more were the evenly colored stripes of even heights that were uniformly found throughout the entire canyon. Not being a Christian at that time, I was not troubled by the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old, but I was not able to understand how each of these individual layers, or stripes, got to be of one unified color.

Being a Christian has nothing to do with it and if he studied a little geology he would understand how the layers in the GC were deposited. Also, in some cases they are not nearly as uniform up close as they look from a distance.

Then we get this.

Did they expect us to believe that millions of years of light pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark pink debris, and so forth? What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers? They are relatively smooth, even lines that stretch for great distances without any signs of erosion between them.

First off as I said the depositional environments are fairly well understood. Just read the web pages. The claim that there is no evidence of erosion between layers is simply false. There are several well know unconformities in the GC there is often evidence of erosion. The karsts in the Redwall Limestones are a well known example.

It actually looked like the product of different types and weights of silt settling after a flood, although at the time, I erroneously considered the possibility of more than one flood having been involved.

One thing the GC does not look like is a flood deposit. It represents deposits formed in depositional environments ranging from dry land through coastal environments, shallow marine environments and deeper marine environments over the eons. The details of the individual layers are inconsistent with flood deposition and the alternation of the layers completely falsifies flood deposition. A single flood could not deposit sandstone followed by shale followed by limestone followed by dolomite followed by sandstone and mudstone then more sandstone then limestone then more sandstone. It make no sense at all. Also there are feature thoughout the GC deposites such a feeding burrows and animal tracks and layers of evaporites that are totally inconsistent with flood deposition.

P.S. I am not a Geologist.... Just throwing out some thought-provoking questions out here...

The only thoughts that Hovind's pages provoke in me are quesitons of whether his statments are deliberately deceptive such as when he claims there is no evidence of erosion between layers or if the merely reflect his supreme ignorance of geology.

 

[BigToe]

The idea of a global flood isn't exclusive to Christianity.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The idea of a global flood isn't exclusive to Christianity.

i'd be interested in hearing about other global flood stories from a culture not collected by missionaries. afaik, many of the global flood stories have been discredited as projections from the amateur anthropologist-missionaries who first collected them.

Biblical literalists point to these stories as evidence that the biblical deluge, and the Ark, represent real history; ethnologists and mythologists suggest that legends such as the Chippewa have to be treated with great caution due to the possibility of contamination from contact with Christianity (and the desire to shape traditional material to fit the newly adopted religion), as well as a common need to explain natural disasters over which early societies had no control.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark#Other_flood_accounts

 

[USincognito]

i'd be interested in hearing about other global flood stories from a culture not collected by missionaries. afaik, many of the global flood stories have been discredited as projections from the amateur anthropologist-missionaries who first collected them.

Interestingly enough the "prior contact" hypothesis explains why the Dogons knew about Sirius B.

 

[BigToe]

There are Sumarian texts that date to 17th century BC. There are Babylonian texts dating to the same century. So chances are there was most definitely some higher than average flooding around that time. Ancient Greek sophists have written about two separate flooding incidents, one of which has been traced back to geological activities that caused large tsunamis in, what, yep the 17th century BC. Norse and Celtic texts also date back telling of large floods. There are texts from many cultures telling of floods. It is the Aztec story that is questioned as having arisen after missionaries had contact with the people.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is the Aztec story that is questioned as having arisen after missionaries had contact with the people.

as a matter of fact, i was first made aware of the problem with reference to aboriginal Australian ethnography. It is an ongoing problem with Amazonian native studies as well. The classic problems were with RC priests in the conquest of the Americas but it certainly is not limited to them.