Opinions on the Flood

[steen]

In Jesus' ministry, He demonstrated many miracles, such as walking on the water, healing those born blind, raising the dead, etc, which science cannot explain, yet we believe to be true.

We believe so. But there is no evidence to science that these events ever occured, so there is no need for science to prove anything.

Getting back to the scoffers of 2 Peter 3

"Where is the promise of his coming" shows their dispair and lack of faith. They have adopted a deistic view of the Creator, where God does not intervene in His Creation. They have become "wilfully ignorant" of the scriptures and the power of God. But what is impossible with man, is possible with God.

Does Evolution lead one down a slippery slope of dispair?

Hmm, it seems to me that you are claiming that if you accept the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then you are ignorant of scripture and have no faith? You might want to revise that outright false statements, before you find yourself in the middel of a major fight over that false statement, please.

 

[steen]

Even so with this evidence, the Pharisees still did not believe.

Thomas needed additional evidence of the resurrection, and Jesus said: because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

yes. Those who need proof of God, like the creationists, they are the ones who have trouble with this. I see solid Evidence for Evolution, and yet I have no problem with my Faith in an unseen, unproven God.

 

[Driver]

You might want to revise that outright false statements, before you find yourself in the middel of a major fight over that false statement, please.

Check again, and fire up your "lie detector". It was not a statement, but a question.

 

[AV1611VET]

We believe so. But there is no evidence to science that these events ever occured, so there is no need for science to prove anything.

Steen,

If Jesus were here among us today (physically), and gave scientists His full cooperation --- could He prove to them that He is God?

 

[Assyrian]

On the other hand, let's not make the weight of evidence so outlandish that it's impossible to prove the Bible correct.

Many people raise the bar so high, it makes even discussions about simple things in the Bible next to impossible to have.

Agreed. You will never prove God to someone who doesn't want to believe. Ultimately our relationship with God is based on faith.

But science does not work by trying to prove things. It looks to see if the evidence fits. What sort of evidence would we expect to see from a huge flood? Can we find that evidence for a global flood? Now floods do leave a clear record behind and a global flood should leave unmistakable evidence. So far Creationists have not been able to come up with it. Yes they claim the entire geological column is evidence of the flood, but that just doesn't work. You have dinosaur footprints like the ones at Palauxy in the middle of the geological column. How could there be dinosaur walking around underwater in the middle of a global flood?

It's not a case of demanding an outlandish weight of evidence, it is the fact that the dinosaur prints mean this evidence simply does not fit. If you want to show a worldwide flood, there is no evidence for it, and no creationist model that fits the evidence we have.

In the case of the man born blind, how would you prove that miracle occurred today? Even if he would have been medically healed, how could you prove it today?

Other than the fact that God saw fit to have it reported --- and reported accurately.

No, medical science cannot prove it was a miracle.

What it can do is say, here are the man's medical records, he was blind from birth for such and such a reason, now he can see. We cannot explain it, but somehow his optic nerve regenerated spontaneously. Apparently he was talking to an itinerant preacher when it happened. Sorry we can't tell you any more than that.

You will get other doctors saying 'Amazing, we can't explain it, it seems to be a miracle'. But the science itself cannot define a miracle, just exclude the false claims and the healings with clear natural explanations.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

But science does not work by trying to prove things. It looks to see if the evidence fits. What sort of evidence would we expect to see from a huge flood? Can we find that evidence for a global flood? Now floods do leave a clear record behind and a global flood should leave unmistakable evidence. So far Creationists have not been able to come up with it. Yes they claim the entire geological column is evidence of the flood, but that just doesn't work. You have dinosaur footprints like the ones at Palauxy in the middle of the geological column. How could there be dinosaur walking around underwater in the middle of a global flood?

Just to note, there are a couple of different suggestions from the Creationist community about where in the Grand Canyon the flood strata begin.

But ultimately it doesn't work, because the Grand Canyon simply doesn't show the necessary signs of a place that has been carved primarily by a single big flood, it was formed gradually.

 

[Willtor]

No --- it seems to me that if you cloned someone --- even a saved person --- their clone would have a sin nature.

Then it stands to reason that sin is not passed on the man's seed, but is passed in some other way.

Steen,

If Jesus were here among us today (physically), and gave scientists His full cooperation --- could He prove to them that He is God?

I know you directed this towards Steen, but I'm going to respond, anyway.

If Christ were to subject himself to that, in that way, and if the hearts of the scientists weren't hardened, he would convince the scientists. The simple fact is, many scientists are convinced that Jesus is God's Holy Word. However, none of what was not providential would be used to further their understanding of nature, just as it is for those of us (scientists) who are Christians, now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now floods do leave a clear record behind and a global flood should leave unmistakable evidence.

How much water damage do scientists need to see from a flood that was on the earth for only a year?

And did it occur to these scientists that a much, much, much greater global "disaster" took place when Pangaea split into 7 continents?

Perhaps the flood evidence was "washed away" --- LOL.

It doesn't bother me in the least that scientists can't find evidence for a global flood; especially when most of the other stuff they've been looking for they can't find, either.

Like life in outer space, cures for this and that, the "Big Bang", water/polar ice caps on Mars (remember: they thought Mars was criss-crossed with canals).

Scientists kill me - they really do.

Give a scientist a grant, and he'll sniff your armpits for pheromones.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then it stands to reason that sin is not passed on the man's seed, but is passed in some other way.

No it doesn't stand to reason. The Bible says our Sin Nature resides in our flesh.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

How much water damage do scientists need to see from a flood that was on the earth for only a year?

Ever been to the scablands?

Geologists know what a big flood looks like.

And did it occur to these scientists that a much, much, much greater global "disaster" took place when Pangaea split into 7 continents?

Why would that be considered a disaster?

It doesn't bother me in the least that scientists can't find evidence for a global flood; especially when most of the other stuff they've been looking for they can't find, either.

Like life in outer space,

Well, they have found amino acids in outer space... and planets orbitting other stars

cures for this and that,

polio, lockjaw, smallpox, ...
You would prefer they stop looking for better treatments for cancer, etc?

the "Big Bang",

1963

water/polar ice caps on Mars

Water content confirmed for the south pole in 2004. (The actual ice caps were observed in the 1800s).

(remember: they thought Mars was criss-crossed with canals).

Who are "they"?
Individual scientists.
Other individual scientists didn't see the markings.
Others demonstrated that an optical illusion could explain what some observers thought they saw.
In 1877 the original observations were made from a distance of 35 million miles, by 1909 the idea of canals had been dismissed.

It's called science.

Scientists kill me - they really do.

More likely they have and/or will repeatedly save your life.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

In the case of the man born blind, how would you prove that miracle occurred today?

No, medical science cannot prove it was a miracle.

I would have to disagree, particularly for that story as reported.

Taking Gould's definition of a fact and applying it to miracles...

If we had medical records confirming this particular person had been blind from birth and a relatively recent examination then the regeneration of a nerve that is never seen to regenerate combined with the ability of the brain to process the information would fit the definition of miracle.

Would that prove Jesus is God? No, but it would demonstrate way beyond any reasonable doubt that it is foolish to deny miracles occur.

 

[AV1611VET]

More likely they have and/or will repeatedly save your life.

Not my spiritual life they won't. They're more than welcome to find ways to prolong my life here on earth; but they overstep their authority when they trod on holy ground.

I say to scientists: Keep your test tubes in the laboratory where they belong - and your "theories" about the beginning of the universe in your heads, where there's plenty of room.

 

[Willtor]

No it doesn't stand to reason. The Bible says our Sin Nature resides in our flesh.

Okay, this doesn't really follow from what we've been discussing, but I'll try to work with it. Sin is in our flesh. However, since a person who is cloned (such that (s)he has no biological father) is still under the power of sin, therefore, the notion of sin being passed by the father is refuted.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, this doesn't really follow from what we've been discussing, but I'll try to work with it. Sin is in our flesh. However, since a person who is cloned (such that (s)he has no biological father) is still under the power of sin, therefore, the notion of sin being passed by the father is refuted.

Precisely, thus Joseph was not Jesus' father, God is. This discussion is moot anyway, since Jesus wasn't cloned.

 

[Willtor]

Precisely, thus Joseph was not Jesus' father, God is. This discussion is moot anyway, since Jesus wasn't cloned.

Haha! No, this isn't relevant to what we were talking about. Trace back through our dialogue and see what we're discussing.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Not my spiritual life they won't. They're more than welcome to find ways to prolong my life here on earth; but they overstep their authority when they trod on holy ground.

And you of course don't overstep your authority in determining what is "holy ground" and how others should make use of their God given talents and

I say to scientists: Keep your test tubes in the laboratory where they belong - and your "theories" about the beginning of the universe in your heads, where there's plenty of room.

telling them to lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you of course don't overstep your authority in determining what is "holy ground" ...

Well, I like to think that God's Word is a---

...lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

I may not recognize holy ground every time I see it, but for the most part, knowing the difference is called "maturity".

 

[Driver]

The folks in 2Peter sound to me like people who had grown cynical after too many failed predictions of Christ's return. It might be worth doing a poll on it but I suspect there is a strong correlation between believing in an immanent rapture and being YEC.

I would suspect a strong correlation between Evolutionists and Preterists, as well.

2 Peter 3

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.



​

The question "Where is the promise of his coming? is being posed by one group to the other (the scoffing shows ridicule in the question being posed). It seems to me the question is being posed by the Preterist/Evolutionist group to the Rapture/Creationist group, because of the reason they give: "All things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation."

 

[AV1611VET]

The question "Where is the promise of his coming? is being posed by one group to the other. It seems to me the question is being posed by the Preterist/Evolutionist group to the Rapture/Creationist group, because of the reason they give: "All things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation."

Excellent point, Driver! I believe in the immanent return as well --- but more because I'm a Dispensationalist than a YEC.

 

[Driver]

Excellent point, Driver! I believe in the immanent return as well --- but more because I'm a Dispensationalist than a YEC.

While not a dispensationalist, I do look for the immenent return of Christ. Jereth had already linked to this poll on another thread, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=3044088