Scientific Noah's flood.

[SkyWriting]

Only in your ill-informed mind that sentence is true.

Ya that was a bit strong. Evidence must fit into a plausible scenario to be considered.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-LyYUYhQBW0J:www.cengagesites.com/academic/assets/sites/4827/Bertino_Chapter2.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiuvEmHslaOEbPnxg7u6NxWOTh34I4xkNaIVCIUKHvgy7qbl8AJ5n-fsVkGy7b0NW0G0YcfswKt9fbjzlmNBEI19bSakbr2z3sInOe3l51zVsSaLQw6f39WDiW7rDg6b67P1XQm&sig=AHIEtbQ43iPjF4hzu-ULnNj2R-YUvVNXrA

Only when a event could be reconstructed and expected to be recreated with the same outcome would one be considered plausible.
But the event need not be actually played out each time. All such lapses in proof are up to the investigator.

 

[RickG]

A rock layer which could be made by the flood, is not necessary made by the flood.

Who said it would be rock?

 

[RickG]

Geology seems to be a part of their program:

Module 3: Physical Science and Creationism

• Course 1 - Science and Common Sense
• Course 2 - Science and Issues of Origins
• Course 3 - Science and Geology
• Course 4 - Science and Radiometric Dating
• Course 5 - Science and the Fossils
• Course 6 - Science and the Flood of Noah
• Course 7 - Science and Problems with the Big Bang
• Course 8 - Science and Our Universe of Wonder

I've got an idea, why not take 8 courses in geology from an accredited institution and compare them with the ICR. Oh! And to just to be able to take many geology courses there are per-requisets, such as math, chemistry, and physics, and I don't mean just basic courses. Does the ICR offer any of those?

Also, why would you support the ICR curriculum? You have already stated you are GAP and believe in local rather than global flood. Is the ICR not 100% YEC?

Does Scripture Allow a Gap?
Why the Gap Theory Won't Work

 

[juvenissun]

Who said it would be rock?

Don't tell me you also know petrology well.

 

[juvenissun]

So you have absolutely zero evidence that ANY rock layers were made by the flood. By your own admission, for any particular rock layer, there MUST be a non-flood explanation.

It is not meaningful (in fact, it is stupid) to spin this simple logic. You seems enjoy of doing that.

Any rock layer of aqueous origin could be made by the global flood.

I never said anything else.

 

[juvenissun]

I get the feeling that you aren't really listening to me...

If Layer A has a flood origin, then layer G must have a non flood origin. But likewise Layer G (which has a non-flood origin) could also have a flood origin. But if Layer G was created by the flood, then layer A CAN'T have a flood origin. So we have a non-flood origin possible for layer A and also a non-flood origin for layer G. And, by the same logic, we have a non-flood origin for ALL the layers.

So since each layer can be explained with a non-flood origin and given that there's no evidence in reality that requires a flood, why should we conclude that the flood origin for any of the layers is correct?

I start to feel tired about you logic thinking.

According to what you said, then the conclusion must be derived from some other argument.

You better do it better. Otherwise, I may not want to stay in this thread.

 

[RickG]

Don't tell me you also know petrology well.

Yes juve, petrology is part of the curriculum I studied. Perhaps you would like to view it?

Department of Earth Sciences :: Department of Earth Sciences Courses :: University of Memphis

 

[Jamin4422]

there are per-requisets,

There are five Modules. It is against the rules to cut and paste all of something. Clearly one course in ID would be worth many classes in geology. Maybe not in this blink of an eye that we call life. But based on all of eternity you would be better to know the God that created Geology, then not to know Him.

If you listen to science this is just one of an infinite number of realities. So parallel universes may not be like this universe at all. What if you send all of your life to learn all about this universe. Then you end up spending all of eternity in a different universe?

Module 4: Biological Science and Creationism

• Course 1 - Science and the Issues of Life
• Course 2 - Science and Intelligent Design
• Course 3 - Science and Molecular Biology
• Course 4 - Science and Natural Selection
• Course 5 - Science and Christian Ethics
• Course 6 - Science and Medical Ethics

 

[Jamin4422]

I start to feel tired about you logic thinking.

Not much longer. Soon anyone that does not have the mind of Christ will perish.

 

[Tiberius]

I start to feel tired about you logic thinking.

According to what you said, then the conclusion must be derived from some other argument.

You better do it better. Otherwise, I may not want to stay in this thread.

Woah, vague claims that my argument doesn't hold up...

Let me put it simply for you then...

For any particular layer of sediment we have (according to you) an explanation that requires the flood and an explanation that does not require a flood.

Why should we take the flood explanation as the best for any layer at all when there is no other evidence of a flood?

 

[Tiberius]

It is not meaningful (in fact, it is stupid) to spin this simple logic. You seems enjoy of doing that.

Any rock layer of aqueous origin could be made by the global flood.

I never said anything else.

Okay, then since you seem to not want to use the (simple) logic that I have used (and you're insulting me, how very Christian of you)...

How does the flood explain any sediment layer that was formed underwater that has fossils of sea life in it?

 

[Tiberius]

When one asks the question clearly enough, the answer is revealed.
As I said, if your discussing "The Flood" no evidence can be duplicated.

In other words, you're just making excuses for why there's no evidence and then claiming that your flood idea must be true?

 

[Tiberius]

Not much longer. Soon anyone that does not have the mind of Christ will perish.

I'm quaking in my boots...

Really, this sort of thing isn't called for. It's rude and proselytizing. Is this thread a discussion or a scare attempt to get people to convert?

 

[Jamin4422]

I'm quaking in my boots...

Don't worry, God is not willing that any should perish.
Funny that this is a part of the passage that says a day is 1,000 years.

"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet 3

Really, this sort of thing isn't called for

Really? This is rather unusual. Every unbeliever I ever talked to always tells me that they think they are going to perish. Your the first to suggest otherwise. In fact science says when you die, you perish. It is religion that says we survive death and that people do not perish. Although Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to think we will just become a part of the cycle of life and become nourishment for other species to feed on.

 

[Jamin4422]

there's no evidence

The flood took place on a known flood plain. How can there be no evidence of a flood? Ancient Mesopotamia Valley where Civilization began is a flood plain. That is because the floods leave a rich silt that is wonderful for growing food. The Nile Delta in Egypt was also a Flood Plain. Although as Egypt grew they also developed irrigation so they could feed a lot of people. With the increase in food we were able to keep a lot more people alive.

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, then since you seem to not want to use the (simple) logic that I have used (and you're insulting me, how very Christian of you)...

How does the flood explain any sediment layer that was formed underwater that has fossils of sea life in it?

Either they died during the flood, or they are recycled fossils.

 

[juvenissun]

Woah, vague claims that my argument doesn't hold up...

Let me put it simply for you then...

For any particular layer of sediment we have (according to you) an explanation that requires the flood and an explanation that does not require a flood.

Why should we take the flood explanation as the best for any layer at all when there is no other evidence of a flood?

This is the last time I will correct you on this: I never said that any sedimentary layer which "required" a global flood to make. Don't put word into my mouth because you can not think logically.

 

[Jamin4422]

Either they died during the flood, or they are recycled fossils.

The dino's died in the flood and that is why we have fossil fuel today?

 

[Tiberius]

This is the last time I will correct you on this: I never said that any sedimentary layer which "required" a global flood to make. Don't put word into my mouth because you can not think logically.

Not in so many words.

But in post 257 you said we should consider it a possibility.

I have shown very clearly that it is not.

 

[juvenissun]

The dino's died in the flood and that is why we have fossil fuel today?

I don't know that.
Fossil fuel may not related to the global flood.