The ice age and the flood

[dad]

Everything is faith, including your faith that you are awake.

The so called science faith has no substance to it. The faith of our father's does.

 

[Jazer]

Does fooling yourself come easy or do you need to work at it?

Perhaps you need to answer that question.
Far to often we ask others the sort of questions we should be asking ourselves.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is that good or bad?

Considered good. But you make a good point.
Always consider the long term results.

 

[dad]

Considered good. But you make a good point.
Always consider the long term results.

You hear the one about the blond that thought the ice age took a long time? But then someone explained that her fridge freezer was not the ice age. She went on to become a so called scientist. Now she wants to be a star.

 

[SkyWriting]

You hear the one about the blond that thought the ice age took a long time? But then someone explained that her fridge freezer was not the ice age. She went on to become a so called scientist. Now she wants to be a star.

Now we know..........the rest of the story.

 

[dad]

Now we know..........the rest of the story.

OK so the evos could not mount any case against a rapid cooling and layering. That is a good sign. If they had anything they would be all over it. ..pops champagne....

 

[CabVet]

OK so the evos could not mount any case against a rapid cooling and layering. That is a good sign. If they had anything they would be all over it. ..pops champagne....

 

[dad]

Don't let Charlie make a monkey out of you. The rapid layering and freezing is the best explanation I have seen yet for the ice age. The animals fast evolving in that still different state after the flood is the only explanation a bible believer could embrace, I would think, and also the best explanation of the evidence.

 

[CabVet]

Don't let Charlie make a monkey out of you. The rapid layering and freezing is the best explanation I have seen yet for the ice age. The animals fast evolving in that still different state after the flood is the only explanation a bible believer could embrace, I would think, and also the best explanation of the evidence.

The rapid layering "explanation" has no scientific support. I agree with you though that it is the only one a bible believer could embrace. But I asked you this before, and will ask once again, why does a bible believer need a scientific explanation for acts of God? Isn't faith and the Bible good enough?

 

[dad]

The rapid layering "explanation" has no scientific support.

It seems to have all the scientific support in the world! Nothing about the ice cores is not explainable this way.

I agree with you though that it is the only one a bible believer could embrace.

Great! So...bible believers, get with it. As you see, there is not a lot of ways to go here.

But I asked you this before, and will ask once again, why does a bible believer need a scientific explanation for acts of God? Isn't faith and the Bible good enough?

Science is merely a creature of this state. The act of God was not in this state. Is that hard to get? Why do you imagine that you can wave God and history away with present state anything?

 

[CabVet]

It seems to have all the scientific support in the world! Nothing about the ice cores is not explainable this way.

Lots about the ice cores is not explainable this way. Seasonal increments is one.

Great! So...bible believers, get with it. As you see, there is not a lot of ways to go here.

Real Bible believers (like our friend AV) say that science can take a hike. They don't try to twist science into what they believe.

Science is merely a creature of this state. The act of God was not in this state. Is that hard to get? Why do you imagine that you can wave God and history away with present state anything?

If science cant explain anything, why use science at all? Why is that so hard to get? Why change science to support your claims? Why do you answer questions with other questions? Give me an answer, why seek for scientific "explanations" for acts of God?

 

[dad]

Lots about the ice cores is not explainable this way. Seasonal increments is one.

Show us seasonal increments in ice at the very bottom?

Real Bible believers (like our friend AV) say that science can take a hike. They don't try to twist science into what they believe.

Real bible believers...so what does that make me??

If science cant explain anything, why use science at all?

You can't. Not when we leave this state.

Why is that so hard to get? Why change science to support your claims?

No need at all. Science is in this present time and state. No need at all to change that.

Why do you answer questions with other questions?

You should talk??

Give me an answer, why seek for scientific "explanations" for acts of God?

If the flood was in a different nature and set of laws why would we call it an act of God? It was an act of God, but He acted in another nature. Try to get that.

 

[CabVet]

If the flood was in a different nature and set of laws why would we call it an act of God? It was an act of God, but He acted in another nature. Try to get that.

If it was an act of God you don't need to explain or look for evidence (or the lack thereof) in ice cores. Try to get that.

 

[dad]

If it was an act of God you don't need to explain or look for evidence (or the lack thereof) in ice cores. Try to get that.

False. The act was in the former nature. The reason that we need to look at evidence is because we need to ask if the present natuure can be proven to be what goes all the way back to creation..or not.

 

[SkyWriting]

Don't let Charlie make a monkey out of you. The rapid layering and freezing is the best explanation I have seen yet for the ice age. The animals fast evolving in that still different state after the flood is the only explanation a bible believer could embrace, I would think, and also the best explanation of the evidence.

Animals do "evolve" very fast. That's today, not in altered states.
Don't mistake Creationism sermons for what we can see today.
I did that for a while. The bible has no comment on biological
adaptation. It says that "kinds" were created. It doesn't say they
are unable to adapt to a degrading world. Just because evolution
has been used to draw the incorrect conclusion that it can create life
doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, it just means man has
(once again) corrupted the understanding of something that God
has designed for good.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...ourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=superfast+evolution

 

[CabVet]

False. The act was in the former nature. The reason that we need to look at evidence is because we need to ask if the present natuure can be proven to be what goes all the way back to creation..or not.

There is no need to look at evidence when one has enough faith.

 

[CabVet]

Animals do "evolve" very fast. That's today, not in altered states.
Don't mistake Creationism sermons for what we can see today.
I did that for a while. The bible has no comment on biological
adaptation. It says that "kinds" were created. It doesn't say they
are unable to adapt to a degrading world. Just because evolution
has been used to draw the incorrect conclusion that it can create life
doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, it just means man has
(once again) corrupted the understanding of something that God
has designed for good.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...ourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=superfast+evolution

No, it means that you corrupt the understanding of evolution, which was never used to draw the conclusion that it can create life.

 

[dad]

There is no need to look at evidence when one has enough faith.

There is when one wants it to be science. Your supposed present state season increments seem to be faith based. I asked for the evidence of them at the lowest parts of the ice cores. Guess you are cornered.

 

[dad]

Animals do "evolve" very fast. That's today, not in altered states.

False. If we put say wolves, lions, sparrows, oxen, tigers, sheep, and horses in a zoo, how fast are you claiming they could evolve? If the commonly accepted date for the flood was something like 5000 years or 4500? Get serious.

Don't mistake Creationism sermons for what we can see today.
I did that for a while. The bible has no comment on biological
adaptation. It says that "kinds" were created.

They were. Then they evolved from there.

It doesn't say they
are unable to adapt to a degrading world. Just because evolution
has been used to draw the incorrect conclusion that it can create life
doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, it just means man has
(once again) corrupted the understanding of something that God
has designed for good.

I can accept evolution as a created ability, and also very very fast evolving in the former state. It was not an altered state. We live in the altered state!

 

[SkyWriting]

False. If we put say wolves, lions, sparrows, oxen, tigers, sheep, and horses in a zoo, how fast are you claiming they could evolve? If the commonly accepted date for the flood was something like 5000 years or 4500? Get serious.

I covered this elswhere. You can change the entire population in one generation. Let's say that God brought only two Great Danes on the Ark.

Guess what? The entire species of Dog is now just Great Danes. One generation. Evidently God picked a variety that had all the DNA required
to create all the variety that we see today.

They cannot interbreed.
They are two species.


For one, I don't accept any man's ideas on a date for the flood.
There are lots of "commonly accepted" religious ideas. There are some about
when a person should be baptized, what age they take communion, what they
wear during baptism, what kind of wine to use, what brand of communion
wafers to use, leavened or unleavened bread, whether church leaders should
be women, who should marry what people, etc. The "date" of the flood is
one of those issues. The scriptures make no serious effort to inform us on that.

Second, all those kinds of animals were on the Ark. So what is your beef?
Two of each "Kind" of animal were on the Ark and each "Kind" of animal
has experienced a certain amount of speciation or adaption or variance
or "evolution" since that time. What problem do you have with that?

One group of researchers used artificial breeding techniques on foxes. They stopped
the investigation because they got so much variance by selecting animals
based on behavior that they stopped the program because the animals size
and color was changing too much. I think it was a Silver fox
program and they stopped being silver. That was after 3 or 4 generations.