Scientific Noah's flood.

[Jamin4422]

Uh, 'fraid not.

You see, these layers I speak of are in the middle of the layers creationists tell us were laid down by the flood. Flood layers below, flood layers above.

That was the popular theory before Darwin's friend Lyell came along with gradualism. (Uniformitarianism) He became the father of geology and was widely accepted when he said that catastrophic theory did not explain geology or the layers. Also this was the beginning of OEC.

 

[Greg1234]

You need to read the Bible again:

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’b 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’c 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22:34-40)

 

[Jamin4422]

37Jesus replied:

Jesus answered a question. They wanted to know what was most important. All of the law of God reflects the Love of God for us. Because God wants what is best for us.

 

[Tiberius]

That was the popular theory before Darwin's friend Lyell came along with gradualism. (Uniformitarianism) He became the father of geology and was widely accepted when he said that catastrophic theory did not explain geology or the layers. Also this was the beginning of OEC.

Irrelevant.

This does NOT tell me anything at all about how sediment layers can have raindrop impacts if they were being laid down underwater.

 

[mzungu]

"34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’b 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’c 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22:34-40)

Just goes to prove the conflicting nature of the contents of the Bible!

You people really love to spin things in order to prove your faith!

 

[Jamin4422]

Irrelevant.

This does NOT tell me anything at all about how sediment layers can have raindrop impacts if they were being laid down underwater.

Talk to a Geologist. That has nothing to do with Creationism.

 

[Tiberius]

So why did you bring it up?

Or are you trying to avoid a subject now that you know you have no answer to my question?

Once again, I will ask how we have sediment layers that have raindrop impacts in them if they were being laid down underwater?

 

[mzungu]

So why did you bring it up?

Or are you trying to avoid a subject now that you know you have no answer to my question?

Once again, I will ask how we have sediment layers that have raindrop impacts in them if they were being laid down underwater?

You may as well knock on a deaf man's ear!

 

[Tiberius]

doncha know? The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I ask enough times, then he'll have to answer me, because by then everyone will know he's avoiding the question, and he'll get embarrassed.

 

[mzungu]

doncha know? The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I ask enough times, then he'll have to answer me, because by then everyone will know he's avoiding the question, and he'll get embarrassed.

I don't think he will feel embarrassed since he can always claim that "the devil dost speaketh in your stead"!

 

[SkyWriting]

You need to read the Bible again:
1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
2) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
6) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18
8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Read your Bible!

OK. Now we read what you claim matches with scripture:

Originally Posted by mzungu
By not adhering to the scriptures you are in essence in violation of the scriptures since

(1) Jesus commanded us to not only keep them in their entirety but not to interpret them personally.

(2) This he commanded until the end of times.

(#1) The passage reads that the prophesy found in scripture comes from God.
Elsewhere we read that there in none who is righteous, no not one.

(#2)So if there is not one righteous person who does good, then then Jesus did not ask anyone to keep the law in it's entirety until the end of time. That would be an impossible request.
Especially because Jesus came to fulfill the law all by Himself.

 

[mzungu]

OK. Now we read what you claim matches with scripture:



(#1) The passage reads that the prophesy found in scripture comes from God.
Elsewhere we read that there in none who is righteous, no not one.

(#2)So if there is not one righteous person who does good, then then Jesus did not ask anyone to keep the law in it's entirety until the end of time. That would be an impossible request.
Especially because Jesus came to fulfill the law all by Himself.

It is in English unless you want me to quote the Greek:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

 

[juvenissun]

By not adhering to the scriptures you are in essence in violation of the scriptures since Jesus commanded us to not only keep them in their entirety but not to interpret them personally. This he commanded until the end of times.

As for the Muslims they believe exactly the same. In fact they believe that Jesus will make a second coming and resurrect the dead etc just as it is believed in Christianity.

Now instead of avoiding my question why don't you explain to me why you dismiss this commandment by Jesus?

Read the verse; It does not mean the laws have to be accomplished but God's intent is to be accomplished. Until God's work is accomplished he gave us a set of laws to abide by. Perhaps your understanding of the English language is not adequate?

I have to give you credit for this understanding. So, what was (and still is) the intention of God via these laws? In other words, what would God expect on God's people by having them kill children and women?

By this question, I actually answered your question.

 

[juvenissun]

Uh, 'fraid not.

You see, these layers I speak of are in the middle of the layers creationists tell us were laid down by the flood. Flood layers below, flood layers above.

If it was in the middle of other layers, then how could it be interpreted even without the idea of global flood? Do you mean the feature of preserved rain drop is physically impossible? If it is possible, then what is the objection? How would the layer above it have anything to do with having the global flood or not having the flood?

 

[mzungu]

I have to give you credit for this understanding. So, what was (and still is) the intention of God via these laws? In other words, what would God expect on God's people by having them kill children and women?

By this question, I actually answered your question.

Since you are asking me an atheist I can only answer by saying that the Bible is the work of man and as such is fallible and susceptible to the ignorance of the bronze age on matters of the physical world. But if you ask me in the spiritual sense; This is how I expect the religious to see the Bible as a spiritual guide, then I can only say follow your heart!

 

[Loudmouth]

If it was in the middle of other layers, then how could it be interpreted even without the idea of global flood?

It would be interpretted as sediments that were laid down in sub-aerial environments instead of marine or aqueous environments. Lakes dry up. Sea levels change. Land is uplifted. I really don't see why this is a difficulty for standard geology.

How would the layer above it have anything to do with having the global flood or not having the flood?

How do you get preserved rain drops on sediments that are buried under flood waters?

 

[juvenissun]

It would be interpretted as sediments that were laid down in sub-aerial environments instead of marine or aqueous environments. Lakes dry up. Sea levels change. Land is uplifted. I really don't see why this is a difficulty for standard geology.



How do you get preserved rain drops on sediments that are buried under flood waters?

That is why I said the rain print was made AFTER the Flood. It can not be used to argue against the existence of the Flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is why I said the rain print was made AFTER the Flood.

The problem is that these rain prints are found bewteen sediments that YEC's claim were produced by the flood. That seems to be a very serious problem for flood geology.

It can not be used to argue against the existence of the Flood.

What geologic formation could be used to argue against the existence of the flood? How is flood geology falsifiable? Your claim above is rather empty unless you can show us how flood geology is falsifiable.

I suspect that what you are really saying is that no evidence will ever convince you that there was no flood. Every single piece of evidence, no matter what it is, will be handwaved away. Hundreds of thousands of annual lake varves uninterrupted by a single flood? Nope, that has to be ignored. You will just claim that the flood produced it . . . somehow. It really doesn't matter how since the flood had to happen, so the flood did it in some mysterious way no matter what.

 

[Tiberius]

If it was in the middle of other layers, then how could it be interpreted even without the idea of global flood? Do you mean the feature of preserved rain drop is physically impossible? If it is possible, then what is the objection? How would the layer above it have anything to do with having the global flood or not having the flood?

What?

Are you saying that the only way to explain ANY layering of sediments is with a global flood?

*Sigh*

Let me talk you through this...

According to flood apologists, the many layers of sediment we see were laid down very rapidly by the waters of Noah's flood. Each sediment was underwater when it was laid down.

On the other hand, science tells us that the layers of sediment were laid down one at a time over a great length of time. So one layer could be laid down, then the waters recede, then the next. Given the annual cycle of wet and dry seasons in many parts of the world, this is both plausible and observed today.

Now, we look at these layers when we dig them up. We see raindrop impacts in some of the layers (let's say Layer M), with other layers on top of them (layer L, K, J, I, H and so on).

The scientific explanation can explain this.

Waters come and deposit layer M. The waters then recede, exposing the wet mud of layer M to the air. Some rain comes - not enough to flood, but enough to leave raindrop impacts in Layer M. After the rain, the sun comes out and over the next several months, the mud of Layer M is baked hard by the dry season. Next year, the floods come again in the wet season, covering the rock hard layer M with a younger layer, layer L.

Flood geology can't explain it. For a raindrop to leave an impact crater, the layer of sediment must be exposed to the air (rain falls through the air - you don't get raindrops underwater). However, flood geology says that this never happened. Once Layer M was laid down by the flood, it was never exposed to the air again! By the time the flood waters had receded, Layer M had been covered by Layers L, K, J and so on.

So, according to flood geology, we should not be able to find ANY raindrop impacts, because the conditions made it impossible for raindrop impacts to occur. Since we do in fact find raindrop impacts, it proves that these layers of sediment could not have been laid down in a massive flood.

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is that these rain prints are found bewteen sediments that YEC's claim were produced by the flood. That seems to be a very serious problem for flood geology.



What geologic formation could be used to argue against the existence of the flood? How is flood geology falsifiable? Your claim above is rather empty unless you can show us how flood geology is falsifiable.

I suspect that what you are really saying is that no evidence will ever convince you that there was no flood. Every single piece of evidence, no matter what it is, will be handwaved away. Hundreds of thousands of annual lake varves uninterrupted by a single flood? Nope, that has to be ignored. You will just claim that the flood produced it . . . somehow. It really doesn't matter how since the flood had to happen, so the flood did it in some mysterious way no matter what.

That is part A. People continue to argue against the Flood in this category. That is what I am defending in this thread.

There are also part B. There are positive evidences that suggest there was indeed a global flood. But that is not a content of this thread.