Another Flood Question

[Astrophile]

None of my business, but what are you trying to reinforce?

The conviction that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. The conviction that most of it was written in a pre-scientific age and that, so far as science is concerned, it simply records the commonly held beliefs of the time when it was written.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think they probably understood that masking or trying to hide their personal beliefs would not be appropriate. I'm not representing the movie (not hiding my belief either); I just thought it made good points and defended them well... but you'll have to watch it objectively to be the judge of that.

You may think so; but for the reasons I explained, it's not an example of "scientists supporting the idea of a global flood."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Apparently they were well-educated actors... I saw a lot of Phds listed.

Maybe; but for the reasons I explained, they aren't scientists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Prove it.

Read the rest of the post. If you don't understand it, let me know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If the account of the Worldwide Flood wasn’t in Genesis... would it be a conventional scientific theory today?

No, every fossil found is almost found exclusively in sedimentary rock, from local floods, all of which just happened to lay down the same exact strata in the same exact order, all over the globe.

Because we do see local floods today doing that don’t you know, cough, cough. This last part is sarcasm for those that don’t get sarcasm.

 

[AV1611VET]

The conviction that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. The conviction that most of it was written in a pre-scientific age and that, so far as science is concerned, it simply records the commonly held beliefs of the time when it was written.

Okay, thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's just false.

In as much as science 'proves' anything (i.e. demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt), it relies to a large extent on the principle - it's called falsifiability.

If a claim is testable, i.e. predicts observable consequences (e.g. the claim that there's an elephant in my bedroom predicts that there's an elephant in my bedroom; the claim of a global flood predicts that there will be evidence of a global flood), then the absence of those consequences falsifies the claim, proving the negative (beyond reasonable doubt).

Typically, when scriptural claims are falsified, special pleading follows.

So what would be the equivalent of the "elephant in my bedroom" as pertains to a global flood?

What would scientists expect to find?

(Remember though, it has to jive with the Scriptural account. Don't just take "global flood" and leave the rest. Such as: vegetation present right after the flood, how the Ark got into the mountains of Ararat from thousands of miles away, etc. In other words, don't compartmentalize and search for watermarks that God obviously removed.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what would be the equivalent of the "elephant in my bedroom" as pertains to a global flood?

What would scientists expect to find?

(Remember though, it has to jive with the Scriptural account. Don't just take "global flood" and leave the rest. Such as: vegetation present right after the flood, how the Ark got into the mountains of Ararat from thousands of miles away, etc. In other words, don't compartmentalize and search for watermarks that God obviously removed.)

But, but, local floods laid down the same exact strata all over the globe, because don’t you know that’s what we see local floods doing today? Cough, cough.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, but, local floods laid down the same exact strata all over the globe, because don’t you know that’s what we see local floods doing today? Cough, cough.

Ya ... well God promised He wouldn't send a flood like that again.

So if scientists are looking for a global flood by comparing it to how local floods work, they're getting what they deserve: nothing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ya ... well God promised He wouldn't send a flood like that again.

So if scientists are looking for a global flood by comparing it to how local floods work, they're getting what they deserve: nothing.

Oh agreed, that’s why every single local flood lays down its own distinctive strata. But reality doesn’t jive with theory, so they tend to ignore reality and concentrate solely on theory.

Not that I believe the Dino fossils have anything to do with Noah’s flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

But reality doesn’t jive with theory, so they tend to ignore reality and concentrate solely on theory.

That's because theory is where their money is at.

1 Timothy 6:10a For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith,

 

[inquiring mind]

God’s word tells us there was a global flood (Genesis 6:17). Some may not believe it; their science may not be able to recognize it, but it happened... and that according to His word, which endureth forever (Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:25, Psalm 119:89). His power transcends any scientific inquiry by man.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

God’s word tells us there was a global flood (Genesis 6:17). Some may not believe it; their science may not be able to recognize it, but it happened... and that according to His word, which endureth forever (Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:25, Psalm 119:89). His power transcends any scientific inquiry by man.

It can be proven scientifically. The same strata lies everywhere all over the globe. As we observe today local floods can not explain this as local floods each lay their own distinctive strata, and only locally. This is not what we observe, we observe sedimentary strata of the same type all over the globe. Impossible if each flood was a local event.

His power is explained by the things made, so that they have no excuse, even if they still continue to make them. But that’s only because we don’t yet fully understand the things made. Once science does all excuses will be removed by man himself, and then judgement will befall. One must just be patient until we advance scientifically enough to fully understand the things made and remove the excuses.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

It can be proven scientifically. The same strata lies everywhere all over the globe. As we observe today local floods can not explain this as local floods each lay their own distinctive strata, and only locally. This is not what we observe, we observe sedimentary strata of the same type all over the globe. Impossible if each flood was a local event.

His power is explained by the things made, so that they have no excuse, even if they still continue to make them. But that’s only because we don’t yet fully understand the things made. Once science does all excuses will be removed by man himself, and then judgement will befall. One must just be patient until we advance scientifically enough to fully understand the things made and remove the excuses.

The dating of the earth is wrong.

The Geological paradigm is incorrect because its foundation is based on cosmology and the formation of mythical planets (space balls)

Until a paradigm shift occurs (which it wont IMO) satan continues his deception until the final conflict.

 

[Speedwell]

The dating of the earth is wrong.

The Geological paradigm is incorrect because its foundation is based on cosmology and the formation of mythical planets (space balls)

Until a paradigm shift occurs (which it wont IMO) satan continues his deception until the final conflict.

Space balls? Mythical planets? Now what?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Space balls? Mythical planets? Now what?

The wandering stars you see are wandering stars.

They are not planets. The only terrestrial reality is earth.

Genesis states that the stars are in the firmament.

There are waters above the firmament.

 

[AV1611VET]

The wandering stars you see are wandering stars.

They are not planets.

Tomato - tomatto.

What's wrong with calling them "planets" to differentiate them from comets, asteroids, or other objects ... all of which are "wandering stars"?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Tomato - tomatto.

What's wrong with calling them "planets" to differentiate them from comets, asteroids, or other objects ... all of which are "wandering stars"?

Because it feeds into the false paradigm and causes confusion in a world where cosmology is taught at a young age.

Including the ball earth.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

The giant fusion gas balls of "make believe" don't fall to the earth.

Revelation 6:13
And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it feeds into the false paradigm and causes confusion in a world where cosmology is taught at a young age.

I'll admit that scientists like to use any cosmology that goes against what God did in Genesis 1 ... most notably those goofy pictures of Babylonian and Hebrew cosmologies drawn, by those who are against the Bible ... but don't you think refusing to call nine wandering stars "planets" is just a bit off the path?