Noah’s Flood Confirmed...?

[Ar Cosc]

He wouldn't -- and no, there are not 'only two' explanations.

The Farmer tilled the land, then made it ready for replanting.

When God lobs a grenade, He picks up the shrapnel afterward, then leaves a note behind saying He did it.

So why are there layers in glacial ice? They serve no purpose except to make the earth look old. The same for sediment layers in lakes, and lead in zircon crystals. God never left a note about these. Does he not want people to believe in him and his literal bible? Does he take pleasure in sending them to hell?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why are there layers in glacial ice?

This has nothing to do with evidence of the Flood.

 

[Ar Cosc]

This has nothing to do with evidence of the Flood.

It has everything to do with an old earth though.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has everything to do with an old earth though.

If you'd rather change the subject than admit you're wrong, that's your prerogative.

Either way, I don't know what else I can add to this discussion.

 

[TheReasoner]

He wouldn't -- and no, there are not 'only two' explanations.

The Farmer tilled the land, then made it ready for replanting.

When God lobs a grenade, He picks up the shrapnel afterward, then leaves a note behind saying He did it.

Sure. But the thing is, there's nothing here indicating it's a 'tilled ground' the way you claim. This is a case of everything in God's creation contradicting you. And I'd rather go with God's creation than your denial of such.

Let's say your argument that God would till the ground so to speak holds. With this argument I agree. But He didn't do it the way you claim. Had He done this 6000 years ago we'd not have seen the stars we see. We wouldn't have seen craters and consistent evidence of millions of years of cosmic evolution the way we do. What we see does not agree with your assertions.

 

[Ar Cosc]

If you'd rather change the subject than admit you're wrong, that's your prerogative.

Either way, I don't know what else I can add to this discussion.

Fine, replace glacial ice with fluvial sediment. Nice and relevant to the flood. And having a distinct sediment layer related to the flood is not going to affect agriculture in the slightest, it's not tilling the land if you remove it at almost every point across the earth, it's hiding the evidence

 

[Hespera]

It has everything to do with an old earth though.

It is an either / or. The ice layers and all the researchers lie, or there was no biblical flood.

 

[TheReasoner]

It is an either / or. The ice layers and all the researchers lie, or there was no biblical flood.

Yep. And the same applies to the age of the earth.
Either geology, astronomy, physics, and I dare say God Himself by way of His creation as well as all natural scientists lie, or the earth is old.

You know, if something looks like a horse, smells like a horse and sounds like a horse it's probably not a fish.

 

[Ar Cosc]

It is an either / or. The ice layers and all the researchers lie, or there was no biblical flood.

Not to mention God lying, by hiding the evidence that would have been left in the glacial ice had it been covered by several thousand metres of water.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you'd rather change the subject than admit you're wrong, that's your prerogative.

Well, at least he didn't mention Pluto.

Either way, I don't know what else I can add to this discussion.

It's never stopped you before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure. But the thing is, there's nothing here indicating it's a 'tilled ground' the way you claim. This is a case of everything in God's creation contradicting you. And I'd rather go with God's creation than your denial of such.

Let's say your argument that God would till the ground so to speak holds. With this argument I agree. But He didn't do it the way you claim. Had He done this 6000 years ago we'd not have seen the stars we see. We wouldn't have seen craters and consistent evidence of millions of years of cosmic evolution the way we do. What we see does not agree with your assertions.

If I spoke 26 Scrabble tiles into existence, labeled A thru Z, with each tile having a different embedded age; stacked those tiles on top of each other; then created life on the top tile; would I be obligated to stack those tiles in a certain order?

What if I left a note stating that I created the tiles and stacked them in alphabetical order, but later, the life on the top tile concludes that they are stacked in chronological order?

Then, when asked, I point out that, in my note I left behind, I once sent a huge wind that knocked the tiles here there and everywhere.

Which would be the next logical step in this hypothetical:

1. Accuse me of lying on the note?
2. Accuse me of restacking the tiles in chronological order, instead of the original alphabetical order?
3. Ask why I didn't leave a new note behind, stating that I restacked them in chronological order?

I vote #2.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either geology, astronomy, physics, and I dare say God Himself by way of His creation as well as all natural scientists lie, or the earth is old.

God isn't obligated to your binary explanations.

If there's a third option, and you don't see it, then it's a matter of myopia on your part.

(And yes, the earth is old, but the age of the earth is not what we're talking about. You guys are trying to change the subject now.)

 

[TheReasoner]

If I spoke 26 Scrabble tiles into existence, labeled A thru Z, with each tile having a different embedded age; stacked those tiles on top of each other; then created life on the top tile; would I be obligated to stack those tiles in a certain order?

What if I left a note stating that I created the tiles and stacked them in alphabetical order, but later, the life on the top tile concludes that they are stacked in chronological order?

Then, when asked, I point out that, in my note I left behind, I once sent a huge wind that knocked the tiles here there and everywhere.

Which would be the next logical step in this hypothetical:

1. Accuse me of lying on the note?
2. Accuse me of restacking the tiles in chronological order, instead of the original alphabetical order?
3. Ask why I didn't leave a new note behind, stating that I restacked them in chronological order?

I vote #2.

Nonsensical.
We're not talking about a system where everything you say makes sense if you just jumble it about a bit. That COULD explain certain things if you're really really lax on your understanding and shut off half your brain in the process. But no AV. For your model to be accurate we must have deceit. Not just jumbling about a few factors and laws. Even such jumbling about would leave traces. loads of them. And guess what: We don't see them.

Sorry AV. You're wrong. Dead wrong. And any amount of logically fallacious arguing is not going to change that. We may not know how the universe was made in every detail. But we know for sure it wasn't made when and how you claim it was made based on your rather crazy extrapolations from a single highly questionable interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nonsensical.

Suit yourself -- I tried.

 

[TheReasoner]

Suit yourself -- I tried.

And got a straight F

AV, your argumentation if flawed. You employ horrendous logic. You jump about completely ignoring everything which does not agree with you and elevate your own stance to a position no human stance should have. You ignore history which teaches us a lot about such claims and how valid they are. You ignore God's calls to humility, and His creation.. And to top it off you ignore Jesus' treatment of those who read the bible with the same arrogance you employ - the pharisees. Completely refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that you might be wrong. This is not defensible. It is highly fanatic behavior and it is not excusable. Not by virtue of what you mean but by how intensely you refuse to acknowledge your own fallibility.

You arrogantly claim your interpretation is infallible. You refuse to acknowledge anything to the contrary of your own suppositions to be correct. You consistently fail to employ decent logic or acknowledge the use of such.

How can you do this, AV, and wonder at why your position is not respected or listened to in the least? Not only is it not reflected in God's creation. Your advocacy of said position is not in accordance with proper Christian behavior in that you employ such arrogance and insistent claims to own infallibility. You may well be a great man in many respects - and I think your heart and your intentions are hale indeed. Those I do not question, but I do criticize how you approach the question of God's creation in which I strongly believe you are indeed guilty of hubris. I'm sorry, I do not mean for this to hurt though I realize it probably does.

Can you defend your position's temerity biblically? No. You can't. You just run around in circles claiming this and that completely without basis. Your sole basis is your own interpretation of a few verses. Verses which make no sense read that way and are contradicted by similar reading of the bible further on. A method of interpretation which has proven most flawed and precarious in every application up until this point in time. So why are YOU so special that this method which has failed and failed tenfold through history suddenly works for you? And how is your position - not by virtue of what it is, but by virtue of how it is held - not sinful?

I'm not good with people usually. But I'm honest to a fault. The way I see it the difference between you and a person who deserves respect regardless of how... Interesting their positions might be is the acknowledgement of fallibility. The mere acknowledgement that they can be wrong. As for you and me on this point I know I am wrong in what I say. I know my position is flawed and indeed wrong. And I do not claim otherwise. However, I also know that while my position is wrong and flawed yours - when it comes to creation - is demonstrably wrong through and through. I do not pretend to have all the answers at all. But you do. And in that you elevate yourself to a position which is exclusively God's. Like I said I am not good with people. But I do believe everyone deserves to be made aware of missteps so these can be corrected. Hence, this is not me attacking creationism as a false position so much as me attacking fanaticism.

 

[sandwiches]

If I spoke 26 Scrabble tiles into existence, labeled A thru Z, with each tile having a different embedded age; stacked those tiles on top of each other; then created life on the top tile; would I be obligated to stack those tiles in a certain order?

What if I left a note stating that I created the tiles and stacked them in alphabetical order, but later, the life on the top tile concludes that they are stacked in chronological order?

Then, when asked, I point out that, in my note I left behind, I once sent a huge wind that knocked the tiles here there and everywhere.

Which would be the next logical step in this hypothetical:

1. Accuse me of lying on the note?
2. Accuse me of restacking the tiles in chronological order, instead of the original alphabetical order?
3. Ask why I didn't leave a new note behind, stating that I restacked them in chronological order?

I vote #2.

Nah. The next step would be to make sure that the note is legitimate.

Now, if it were only as simple as a few tiles stacked one way or another, but the ENTIRETY of data from astronomy, archeology, paleontology, biology, geology, climatology, oceanology, cosmology, physics, etc all agrees, then not only did god rearrange the tiles, he changed the letters into spades, diamonds, hearts, and clubs, changed the material they're made of from wood to paper, added dozens of new "tiles" such as a Joker, but you still insist they're Scrabble tiles.

In other words, he didn't just "clean up" the evidence and left us a note. He ADDED evidence of something entirely different of what the note says he did.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God isn't obligated to your binary explanations.

Nor is he obligated to your egotistical ones.

 

[Doveaman]

It is an either / or. The ice layers and all the researchers lie, or there was no biblical flood.

Why is there always only two alternatives with you people?

How about a third alternative such as the fallible human researchers misinterpreting the evidence?

Come on, don't be so closed minded!

 

[Doveaman]

Not to mention God lying, by hiding the evidence that would have been left in the glacial ice had it been covered by several thousand metres of water.

I guess God is also lying about His existence since He is hiding the evidence too, right?

 

[Nathan Poe]

If I spoke 26 Scrabble tiles into existence, labeled A thru Z, with each tile having a different embedded age; stacked those tiles on top of each other; then created life on the top tile; would I be obligated to stack those tiles in a certain order?

What if I left a note stating that I created the tiles and stacked them in alphabetical order, but later, the life on the top tile concludes that they are stacked in chronological order?

Then, when asked, I point out that, in my note I left behind, I once sent a huge wind that knocked the tiles here there and everywhere.

Which would be the next logical step in this hypothetical:

1. Accuse me of lying on the note?
2. Accuse me of restacking the tiles in chronological order, instead of the original alphabetical order?
3. Ask why I didn't leave a new note behind, stating that I restacked them in chronological order?

I vote #2.

I'd vote #4 -- have you committed to an institution for claiming to be God.