Scientific Noah's flood.

[CabVet]

I don't mind leaving science to scientists; but when ... scientists ... start discrediting the Bible, I don't mind speaking my mind.

Just like others don't like it when people use the Scriptures to discredit science.

I agree 100%, but for the record, saying that there is no scientific support for the Bible (which is what most scientists do) is not discrediting the Bible. The Bible describes supposedly supernatural events, therefore outside the realm of science, so it is obvious that there won't be (neither there should be) any scientific evidence for stuff in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree 100%, but for the record, saying that there is no scientific support for the Bible (which is what most scientists do) is not discrediting the Bible. The Bible describes supposedly supernatural events, therefore outside the realm of science, so it is obvious that there won't be (neither there should be) any scientific evidence for stuff in the Bible.

What do you think when someone says x in the Bible didn't happen?

 

[CabVet]

By way of example, does it bother you when people ask where the Flood water went?

Or does it bother you when someone makes up an answer as to where the Flood water went?

Or both?

I think both bother me. Nobody tries to explain Jesus walking on water by saying that he was really flying over it or by saying that he froze a layer of water beneath his feet. It is a miracle, what difference does it make? If you need to rationalize it, you lack the faith to believe in it.

 

[RickG]

I don't mind leaving science to scientists; but when ... scientists ... start discrediting the Bible, I don't mind speaking my mind.

Just like others don't like it when people use the Scriptures to discredit science.

What is important is that you don't see discrediting of the bible in the scientific literature. At least I haven't run across any examples.

 

[CabVet]

What do you think when someone says x in the Bible didn't happen?

I think that they are not religious and don't have the faith to believe in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think both bother me. Nobody tries to explain Jesus walking on water by saying that he was really flying over it or by saying that he froze a layer of water beneath his feet. It is a miracle, what difference does it make? If you need to rationalize it, you lack the faith to believe in it.

Couldn't have said that better, myself ...

 

[DrkSdBls]

By way of example, does it bother you when people ask where the Flood water went?

Or does it bother you when someone makes up an answer as to where the Flood water went?

Or both?

I have nothing against someone proposing that a Miracle Occurred (Personally, I'd rather have some evidence to that fact but hey, you can believe what you want.)

What I do have something against is someone "Inventing" that evidence and/or trying to supplement false evidence/reasoning for real science.

It's inherently dishonest and ultimately detrimental to our Species.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is important is that you don't see discrediting of the bible in the scientific literature.

I'm going to disagree with this on principle.

They may not directly discredit the Bible; but when they conclude something where the Bible says otherwise ... that's discrediting It.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that they are not religious and don't have the faith to believe in it.

Hmmm ... good point.

 

[CabVet]

I'm going to disagree with this on principle.

They may not directly discredit the Bible; but when they conclude something where the Bible says otherwise ... that's discrediting It.

So what you are saying is that gravity discredits the Bible because according to it Jesus could not have possibly walked on water?

 

[RickG]

What do you think when someone says x in the Bible didn't happen?

What is important is the context that it is present in. For example: I say there has never been a global deluge for two specific reasons. (1) Geologic evidence shows there has not been one, and (2) the people in the bible had no realistic idea what "all the world" was. The world to them was what they knew. They had no idea what the entire earth actually was. That is why I subscribe to a regional/local flood.

 

[juvenissun]

Wait, asked me to give you an example, then you would explain how the flood would create it. How does the flood create the, Coconino Sandstoneand,Hermit Shale. Saying it certainly can does not explain how the flood creates it.

Try again. Both are in the Grand Canyon which most of if not all creationist claim was created by a global flood. How does a flood create those two layers, or if you wish, just explain one of those layers.

How were those layers laid down? What makes them global flood layers?

Shale is supposed to be deposited in a quiet body of water. So if the Hermit shale was caused by the global flood, then the Grand Canyon area during the time of the Flood was a quiet area.

That is how.

 

[Jamin4422]

So what you are saying is that gravity discredits the Bible because according to it Jesus could not have possibly walked on water?

What about Ellen, can she walk on water?

Cornstarch Walk on Water - Spangler on The Ellen Show - YouTube

 

[AECellini]

What about Ellen, can she walk on water?

Cornstarch Walk on Water - Spangler on The Ellen Show - YouTube

non sequitur

 

[Jamin4422]

non sequitur

Maybe but still a lot of fun. There are still people left in the world that are of the opinion that science does not have to be dull and boring.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Maybe but still a lot of fun. There are still people left in the world that are of the opinion that science does not have to be dull and boring.

Most Scientist Don't Find it all that Dull and Boring either.

They say you must love your job to devote your life to it so I imagine They Find something to Love about it, cause it sure isn't for the money!

 

[RickG]

Shale is supposed to be deposited in a quiet body of water. So if the Hermit shale was caused by the global flood, then the Grand Canyon area during the time of the Flood was a quiet area.

That is how.

Fossils found in the Hermit Shale consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians which indicates a river delta area. Just above that layer is the Coconino formation, a layer of sandstone showing the cross bedding of wind blown sand dunes. Fossils there show invertebrate tracks and burrows. Both formations are of terrestrial origin. The two layers above that are the Toroweap and Kaibab Limestone formations which contain marine fossils. There is no way that sequence could happen from any kind of flood, not to mention that the very youngest layers are 250 million years old.

Also, please explain how limestone is formed from a flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, please explain how limestone is formed from a flood.

Classic Movie Line #54 - YouTube

 

[RickG]

Classic Movie Line #54 - YouTube

Or you could actually approach it as a learning experience and try to learn the process in which various types of limestone are formed.

Sourcing a basic 101 geology textbook would be quite helpful, but here's an excellent source: Limestone: Rock Uses, Formation, Composition, Pictures

 

[Jamin4422]

Sourcing a basic 101 geology textbook would be quite helpful, but here's an excellent source: Limestone: Rock Uses, Formation, Composition, Pictures

What you call a "learning experence" we call allowing others to do your thinking for you. You do howard stern proud.