The Flood

[AV1611VET]

You may be unaware of Science AV, but you are not that unawre of history.

Google William Buckland. Dean of Westminster Cathedral, Leading Geologist of his period and YEC.

Try OEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the interpretation is wrong, how should we be interpreting it. If the evidence has been "cleaned up" how do you know - you don't have any documentation to that effect.

I don't, huh?

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

The divine power which now renewed the face of the earth can renew the face of an afflicted troubled soul and of a distressed persecuted church. He can make dry ground to appear even where it seemed to have been lost and forgotten, Ps 18:16.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I don't, huh?

No, you don't.

That verse doesn't say anything about removing the geological traces, much less planting new evidence that is incompatible with the very notion of a worldwide flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you don't.

That verse doesn't say anything about removing the geological traces, much less planting new evidence that is incompatible with the very notion of a worldwide flood.

God didn't "plant" anything; and you're ignoring a global super-altering geological split that occurred about 100 years later in Peleg's time.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

God didn't "plant" anything

Yes he did. He planted lake varves that show hundreds of thousands of years' worth of uninterrupted progression. He altered the Artic ice so that the ice cores extracted from it would show, again, a history stretching back hundreds of millenia without showing traces of the supposed flood.

He even made a tree in such a way that it appears to be over 5000 years old, which means that the tree would have continued to grow during the flood.

and you're ignoring a global super-altering geological split that occurred about 100 years later in Peleg's time.

I guess I am. Let me guess: the global super-altering geological split erased all the evidence for the flood, made the new evidence discussed above and then deleted its own traces.

Chapter and verse for this, please.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes he did. He planted lake varves that show hundreds of thousands of years' worth of uninterrupted progression. He altered the Artic ice so that the ice cores extracted from it would show, again, a history stretching back hundreds of millenia without showing traces of the supposed flood.

No, He didn't --- if He wanted you to know the earth was 4.55 billion years old, He would have documented it.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No, He didn't --- if He wanted you to know the earth was 4.55 billion years old, He would have documented it.

Well, apparently he thought it would be better to leave a lot of evidence suggesting that age, without documenting that this evidence is wrong.

Chapter and verse on the "global super-altering geological split", please.

 

[AV1611VET]

Chapter and verse on the "global super-altering geological split", please.

[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible]

Uh huh. Did this now leave any traces, or did God again replace them for sanitary reasons?

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh huh. Did this now leave any traces, or did God again replace them for sanitary reasons?

Cute.

 

[FishFace]

I don't, huh?

And you made the leap from "dried up" to "removed vast swathes of rock and associated evidence.." how, exactly?

 

[FishFace]

[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible]

Divided, how?

 

[Baggins]

Try OEC.

That's right once he had looked at the evidence and abandoned his belief in a flood and a young earth.

 

[Baggins]

[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible]

Infected with dadism

The split is back!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Split Rock]

[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible]

How do you know this passage does not refer to the splitting of the human population, rather than the continents?

Infected with dadism

The split is back!!!!!!!!!!

I miss dad...

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know this passage does not refer to the splitting of the human population, rather than the continents?

Um ... well ... because the continents are split? And no other passages seem to refer to it? And with some, it's basic theology?

 

[Inan3]

How do you know this passage does not refer to the splitting of the human population, rather than the continents?

Because He would have said people or nations as He did in other places. When He say earth He means earth and when He says people He means people.

Unless you are looking at it "allegorically" as it seems you guys prefer to do. That way you can make it say whatever you want.

 

[lemmings]

Um ... well ... because the continents are split? And no other passages seem to refer to it? And with some, it's basic theology?

Have you ever considered that the world at the time that this was written consisted entirely of the Africa-Eurasia supper content? It would be kind of stupid to say that the contents where divided when all the contents where clearly connected.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you ever considered that the world at the time that this was written consisted entirely of the Africa-Eurasia supper content? It would be kind of stupid to say that the contents where divided when all the contents where clearly connected.

Huh???

I thought that's what I've been saying.

The world was one giant supercontinent (Pangaea?) until Peleg's time, when God divided it up into what is now our seven continents.

 

[Inan3]

the only explanation you gave was it didn't mean what i said it did. You have never said what you did actually mean by it, probably because there appears to be no other explanation.

But you are a creationist and congenitally inable to admit any error however small, so I let you off.

This was my explanation to you and that's all I need to give.

Well I would have to point out specific individuals to do that and though "some" may revel in doing that, I don't so I won't.

Also, you don't believe what I say because you already have your mind made up about what I feel or think (wrongly so, I might add) so I see no sense in providing you with further explanation but here is a definition

os·ten·ta·tion (ŏs'tĕn-tā'shən, -tən-)
n.
Pretentious display meant to impress others; boastful showiness.
Archaic. The act or an instance of showing; an exhibition.
and as I said below...

Just keep your eyes open and you'll see it. For those who do it they will know who they are.

Then you will know WHY I said it!

This IS my explanation to you as far as I'm going to take it.