New Evidence Concerning the Flood

[Mikecpking]

I'll have to research it...look through my concordance and such.

I don't mean to offend, but you are a scientist. I am a minister. I am a man of faith. You are a man of science. I don't doubt the bible. Not one word, not one period. I'm here at a Christian forum, declaring the Word of God and you're telling me I'm wrong. The bible is wrong. God is wrong. My pastor is wrong. Every creationist is wrong. Who or what is above all of them? Science. Science is theory. Man has a theory, called a hypothesis, does studies according to his hypothesis and tries to prove himself right. I've seen it over and over again. Something a scientist says is right one day, a year or two later, another scientist comes along, says that was wrong and has a better theory. Mainstream science changes every ten years or so. Things written in my high school science books are outdated. An example of what I'm talking about is the age of the earth. It changes constantly. If science is exact and is above the Word, then why does it keep changing?

Hi Saucy,
But why does science and the bible have to conflict?

 

[Saucy]

I'll grant you that one. I am not a scientist. So, in the end, I can use no other methods to show you the bible is 100% correct other than to say it? What if someone says king David never existed, but I have archeological evidence to prove it? I can't use that evidence in evangelism to show people he indeed lived? What if there's world-wide evidence of a flood and I'm talking to a skeptic who demands evidence outside of the bible?

 

[shernren]

The Bible is 100% correct whether or not the Flood was a global flood or a local flood. If you have valid evidence, by all means use it! We are not saying that you cannot use evidence to support the Flood, but that likely there is no evidence usable to support the Flood in the first place.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'll have to research it...look through my concordance and such.

I don't mean to offend, but you are a scientist. I am a minister. I am a man of faith. You are a man of science. I don't doubt the bible. Not one word, not one period. I'm here at a Christian forum, declaring the Word of God and you're telling me I'm wrong. The bible is wrong. God is wrong. My pastor is wrong. Every creationist is wrong. Who or what is above all of them? Science. Science is theory. Man has a theory, called a hypothesis, does studies according to his hypothesis and tries to prove himself right. I've seen it over and over again. Something a scientist says is right one day, a year or two later, another scientist comes along, says that was wrong and has a better theory. Mainstream science changes every ten years or so. Things written in my high school science books are outdated. An example of what I'm talking about is the age of the earth. It changes constantly. If science is exact and is above the Word, then why does it keep changing?

I am also a man of faith, and I don’t doubt the Bible. Faith is very different from presumption. Creationists incorrectly presume that God wrote the Book of Genesis and that God did so with the intent that it be interpreted literally as an historic account of actual events that have occurred. I have faith that God used men to write the Bible to teach others spiritual truths and that God never intended that the Book of Genesis be interpreted literally as an historic account of actual events that have occurred. Creationists base their presumption on doctrines of men rather than upon what the Bible actually says about itself.



The Bible is NOT wrong. God is not wrong. But many pastors who have answered God’s call to the pastorate but who said “no” to the call to prepare themselves academically for the pastorate are consequently VERY wrong about MANY things. One proof that these men are wrong about many things is the multitude of conflicting interpretations that these men preach. And very many of these interpretations are based upon absolutely nothing but ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek texts.



And yes, creationists are wrong. They are wrong because they very carelessly presumed a false premise to be a rock-solid premise and they have incorrectly interpreted everything based upon their false premise.



Science is NOT a theory! Science is a method given to us by God for us to learn about His creation. The method itself is not flawed, but the men who use the method are human beings, and human beings make mistakes. But scientists, unlike creationists, learn from their mistakes and we see very steady progress in the advancement of science. For example, the very unreliable and highly dangerous airplane of the early 20th century gave rise to very reliable and very safe airplanes. For another example, surgical procedures that were not even attempted in the early 20th century have become so safe that they are routinely performed with nearly 100% success. And, of course, we have the evolution of the automobile, the washing machine, the rifle, the calculator, and dozens of other things that we use every day. Progress in science is undeniable.



Our knowledge of the age of the earth is becoming more and more precise as our use of the very many different dating techniques becomes more sophisticated and precise. And we now have very many different dating techniques based upon a wide variety of principles of science, and all of these dating techniques are giving us the same answers, confirming thousands upon thousands of times that they are VERY accurate.



Our knowledge of the Bible is also progressing, and Bible scholars are learning from the mistakes of their predecessors. Creationism, on the other hand, is not progressing because the premise upon which it is based is fatally flawed. Everyday, more and more Christians are learning the truths that God is teaching us about His creation through the sciences that He has given to us, and they are seeing more and more clearly that creationist views are NOT supported by the facts, and that creationists are more and more resorting to a willful distortion of the facts in order to maintain their position rather than adopt a more tenable position.

 

[Mikecpking]

I'll grant you that one. I am not a scientist. So, in the end, I can use no other methods to show you the bible is 100% correct other than to say it? What if someone says king David never existed, but I have archeological evidence to prove it? I can't use that evidence in evangelism to show people he indeed lived? What if there's world-wide evidence of a flood and I'm talking to a skeptic who demands evidence outside of the bible?

Hi Saucy,
I do believe the bible is 100% correct as well.

To quote Galileo who was branded a heretic for believing the Earth went around the sun in his day said of the bible "teaches us how one goes to Heaven, not how heaven goes" and he himself was a believer.

I believe the flood happened, but the obvious evidence was the massive rise in sea levels immediately afterwards by some 300 feet or more.

Here is a really good link which shows sea level rise from the last ice age:

http://jesse.usra.edu/articles/iceagemodule/iceagemodule-paper.html

A theory on how the flood story came about in 2 different cultures:
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm

 

[Saucy]

Good Link

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://www.earthage.org/floodevidences/floodevid.htm Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood!

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

[url]http://www.trueorigin.org/[/url] “Talk.Origins Archive” Rebuttals

 

[KerrMetric]

http://www.earthage.org/floodevidences/floodevid.htm Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood!

And your geology background is? That list must have several thousand pages of rebuttals on the web alone. Geology by kindergarten doesn't pass muster.

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/flood/f00.htm Index of GLOBAL FLOOD Messages

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0414_050414_egyptwhale.html Photo in the News: Whale Found in Egypt Desert

 

[gluadys]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0414_050414_egyptwhale.html Photo in the News: Whale Found in Egypt Desert

Deep_MindQuest

Are you prepared to discuss any of the information you are providing links for? If not, I will not waste my time checking them out. But I will look at them if there is likely to be a conversation about them.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I don't mean to offend, but you are a scientist. I am a minister. I am a man of faith. You are a man of science. I don't doubt the bible. Not one word, not one period. I'm here at a Christian forum, declaring the Word of God and you're telling me I'm wrong.

You are being told that your interpretation is wrong.

God is wrong.

Who said that?!?

Mainstream science changes every ten years or so.

Hmmm, Einstein's equation for General Relativity and Schroedinger's Equation in Quantum Mechanics haven't changed in well over 60 years, the Kreb cycle in
Biology is nearly that old as well.

They have been expanded upon, certainly, as we gain understanding, but they themselves have not changed and remain unchanged as major foundations of their branches of science.

Things written in my high school science books are outdated. An example of what I'm talking about is the age of the earth. It changes constantly.

It hasn't changed significantly in my lifetime. My recollection is that it hasn't changed
by even 10% since the 1950s, perhaps earlier.

Maybe you should consider the posibility that your understanding of science isn't good enough to be making broad statements about it, or to judge what is or isn't good material.

 

[Edmond]

I was actually listening to K-Love, which is a Christian radio station and they had a brief commercial about the flood. They said that in Psalms it mentions that before the flood, the mountains were lower than they are now and there weren't any low-lying areas. It wasn't until after the flood that the mountains were raised and the valleys were lowered. This is what is says in Psalms. The earth could've been much, much flatter than it is now. They also said that right now, there is enough water on the earth that if the earth was flatter (no high mountains or deep valleys) it would cover the earth over 8,000 feet! That's 1 1/2 miles. So, clearly, there wouldn't be the need for that much water in the first place to cover Mt. Everest, because it wasn't as high as it is now. This is what the bible says. What do you think?

I believe such conclusion are more far more probable than just possible. All of the faulting that we see that result in the massive granite upheavals of the major mountain ranges through todays geologic world required enormous amounts of pressure and force to bring them into the constructs and positioning we find them today. The hydrolic forces that would have been at work in a flood of the magnitude of that described in Genesis would have employed forces sufficent to produce such a presence.

The upliftings of mountains that we see today along with the displacement of the continents suggest that the preflood world would have been far less extreme in its variations of elevations than that of the castastrophic results we see present today in the geologic record. Such extreme geology also presents strong doubt that such conditions could have resulted from slow geological changes in local areas only over long periods of uniform chance. This is part of the presuppositions of evolution and how the primary source of assumptions of the dating of the age of fossils.

-------------------------------------------

 

[shernren]

Here is a good critique of the global flood from an OEC viewpoint, strictly Scriptural:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

and a global flood would not have affected radiodecay rates.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I believe such conclusion are more far more probable than just possible. All of the faulting that we see that result in the massive granite upheavals of the major mountain ranges through todays geologic world required enormous amounts of pressure and force to bring them into the constructs and positioning we find them today. The hydrolic forces that would have been at work in a flood of the magnitude of that described in Genesis would have employed forces sufficent to produce such a presence.

Do you happen to have a reference to a paper which does the calculations?

Such extreme geology also presents strong doubt that such conditions could have resulted from slow geological changes in local areas only over long periods of uniform change.

Would you care to explain what you are trying to say here? Give examples...

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe such conclusion are more far more probable than just possible. All of the faulting that we see that result in the massive granite upheavals of the major mountain ranges through todays geologic world required enormous amounts of pressure and force to bring them into the constructs and positioning we find them today. The hydrolic forces that would have been at work in a flood of the magnitude of that described in Genesis would have employed forces sufficent to produce such a presence.

The upliftings of mountains that we see today along with the displacement of the continents suggest that the preflood world would have been far less extreme in its variations of elevations than that of the castastrophic results we see present today in the geologic record. Such extreme geology also presents strong doubt that such conditions could have resulted from slow geological changes in local areas only over long periods of uniform chance. This is part of the presuppositions of evolution and how the primary source of assumptions of the dating of the age of fossils.

-------------------------------------------

Rubbish! Nothing but rubbish! YEC’s have done more to bring discredit to the Christian faith than any group of atheists possible could! The story of Noah’s Ark in Genesis is NOT an historical account of actual events and we know that for certain because such a thing simply could NOT have happened. And that it could not have happened has been proven and proven over and over again on this message board, and even in this very thread.

This is NOT an issue concerning which biologists and geologists disagree, nor is it an issue concerning which the scholars of Genesis living and writing today disagree. Therefore it is absolutely ludicrous for Christians to attempt to defend a point of view that exists only among radical fundamentalist extremists who are willing to do anything whatsoever to defend their grossly outdated interpretation of the Bible to “prove” that evolution is a lie, even if it makes atheists out of everyone else!

Those persons who are attempting to keep the Church in the Dark Ages are not causing the gospel to be advanced; they are causing it to be buried by scientific data. Not long ago the vast majority of scientists were Christians, but the radical fundamentalist extremists brought so much shame and embarrassment to the name of Christ that those scientists moved to more and more liberal churches until there were no churches that were more liberal and they left the church all together. What an abysmal calamity!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe such conclusion are more far more probable than just possible. All of the faulting that we see that result in the massive granite upheavals of the major mountain ranges through todays geologic world required enormous amounts of pressure and force to bring them into the constructs and positioning we find them today. The hydrolic forces that would have been at work in a flood of the magnitude of that described in Genesis would have employed forces sufficent to produce such a presence.

The upliftings of mountains that we see today along with the displacement of the continents suggest that the preflood world would have been far less extreme in its variations of elevations than that of the castastrophic results we see present today in the geologic record. Such extreme geology also presents strong doubt that such conditions could have resulted from slow geological changes in local areas only over long periods of uniform chance. This is part of the presuppositions of evolution and how the primary source of assumptions of the dating of the age of fossils.

-------------------------------------------

But, of course, we know for an absolute fact that this scenario is fictitious because if it were not, every ecosystem on the planet earth would have been destroyed and every animal and every human being on the Ark would have perished even if Noah was able to build an ark the size of the state of Connecticut and keep 4,000,000 – 5,000,000 animals and his family alive for year during this cataclysmic event.

 

[shernren]

YEC’s have done more to bring discredit to the Christian faith than any group of atheists possible could!

I would like you to substantiate this statement. While I disagree with YECs I think that this is something fairly broad and dangerous to say, even with proper proof. In the first place, not all YECism damages Christian credibility but specifically scientific creationism advocates who use questionable scientific evidence. That particular brand of YECism probably has not been around for more than 50 years and it seems like an error in perspective, to say the least, to say that that particular group has done more damage to the church than atheism.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I would like you to substantiate this statement. While I disagree with YECs I think that this is something fairly broad and dangerous to say, even with proper proof. In the first place, not all YECism damages Christian credibility but specifically scientific creationism advocates who use questionable scientific evidence. That particular brand of YECism probably has not been around for more than 50 years and it seems like an error in perspective, to say the least, to say that that particular group has done more damage to the church than atheism.

Thank you for reading my post and replying to it. I agree that my statement was a bit too broad and that some YECists have done much more damage to the Christian faith than have others. However, in the United States millions of children are taught by their parents and their church that evolution is a lie of the devil and that a closer look at the evidence supports YECism rather than evolution. Then these children go to school and they learn that precisely the opposite is the truth and they realize that their parents and their church did not know what they were talking about and these children loose their faith in Christ and the Bible.

This damage is greatly magnified by those parents and churches who tell the children that if evolution is true, God is a liar. Then these children learn that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and therefore the evidence that God is a liar is overwhelming!

As a teenager, I knew that Jesus was a fictional character and that the Bible was written by superstitious, uneducated fools; and I knew this because of the ridiculous nonsense that YECists told me about the Bible. Most unfortunately I was not exposed to sound Biblical teaching until later and I was an agnostic throughout my early years. And there are countless others throughout the United States who have had the same experience, but many of them were so disillusioned by the false information that they continue to disbelieve in Christ and the Bible.

In Europe, where there is a stronger emphasis on teaching science, the Christian faith has been nearly extinguished. If Christianity is to survive in the educated world, Christians MUST learn the truth and teach the truth rather than falsehoods.