Science-Ignorant of the Flood or simply dishonest
- Thread starter TasManOfGod
- Start date
MKJ
Contributor
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. So let me know if I've misunderstood your question. As far as I can see you want to know if scientists should ask whether all the sedimentary rock in the world was laid down in one year?
It is a funny question in a way, because scientists have already done a lot of work on how to date rocks and how sedimentary rocks are formed - the question of how sedimentary rocks have formed has already been asked. And techniques are refined sometimes, and methods to date better and more accurately, and new samples and places being dated, goes on all the time.
There are quite a few different ways to go about such dating, and its been done on many different kinds of rock samples over the whole world, and the different methods have been cross-matched and such. And the results pretty clearly indicate that it is not the case that all sedimentary rocks were laid down in one year.
So something would have to happen to suggest there was a problem with that data, or something new would have to appear, to make it seem worthwhile to go through all that data gathering again.
Upvote
0
There are no rocks older than the creation of the earth. The Flood and its aftermath simply rearranged them. Now if God in His wisdom had decided to make some appear older than others than that is God's business. Scientific presumption not greater than God and His word
Upvote
0
MKJ
Contributor
Science begins by making no assumptions about the age of the Earth.
The created world is part of God's revelation, just as Scripture is - it is his natural revelation. If you are saying that God deliberatly left false information in his creation, that is no different than saying he left deliberately false information in Scripture.
Upvote
0
Archie the Preacher
Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
- Apr 11, 2003
- 3,171
- 1,011
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
The problem with your comment is you ignore the fact the Egyptian nation, kingdom and empire survived 2000 BC without any bother.TasManOfGod said:
If I remember correctly, the ancient Egyptians did have a flood event in their history. It seems to be a variation of the Enuma Elish; much further in the past than 2000 BC (give or take a bit).
Therefore: To avoid being destroyed in the Flood, the entire history of Egypt began after the flood. All the pyramids and such were built at some point after 2000 BC. Is that your understanding?
Upvote
0
The question WAS asked---and answered, in the negative, 200 years ago. The reasons it was answered in the negative then, are still reasons to answer in the negative today, and today we have still more reasons to answer in the negative. Judging from the evidence, there has never been a flood of global extent. Some massive regional floods on occasion, but not a global flood.
Upvote
0
Archie the Preacher said:
The Flood occurred 2500 bc There maybe something "Egyptian" prior to that which I am not aware of but I tend to think that the land would be disturbed so much that even pyramids would not survive.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Making something appear old is not sinful otherwise Adam would have started life as a (wombless) feotus and there would be only be plant seeds in the Garden of Eden to begin with. Is that deceitful?
Upvote
0
Archie the Preacher
Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
- Apr 11, 2003
- 3,171
- 1,011
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
TasManOfGod said:
You are saying God falsified evidence. Your statement claims God committed fraud. I suggest you withdraw the statement.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Not at all. Noah could well have experienced a great flood. Jesus doesn't mention the extent of the flood.
Upvote
0
I submit, your honour, that my client had no intention to defraud and that this preposterous suggestion is a figment of the accuser's mind.
Upvote
0
The flood is literal as well as the resurrection. 
I have read two new post's. One suggesting that the flood isn't literal. When the movie Noah debuted. And the other thread doubting the literal resurrection of Christ. Near Easter.
If your thinking an attack against Christians, your absolutely correct.
I have read two new post's. One suggesting that the flood isn't literal. When the movie Noah debuted. And the other thread doubting the literal resurrection of Christ. Near Easter.
If your thinking an attack against Christians, your absolutely correct.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MKJ
Contributor
Telling untruths is sinful, and although you can't really apply the idea of sin to God, God is all Truth. Leaving evidence that things are other than what they really are is an untruth.
Adam, even assuming he sprung up fully grown, which is not really described, would have had every evidence of being exactally the age he was. I doubt, for example, that his teeth were particularly worn, or that he had wrinkles from too much time in the sun.
If you can't see why saying something is what it is not is a problem for God, whose very words create truth, you have a bigger issue than the nature of the creation story.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
My point is:
Adam seconds after creation -appears as a grown man (lets assume 20 yo)
Rocks -seconds after creation -appears as old rocks (scientificly perhaps millions of yo)
I see no difference and certainly have no "issues" pertaining to it
Adam seconds after creation -appears as a grown man (lets assume 20 yo)
Rocks -seconds after creation -appears as old rocks (scientificly perhaps millions of yo)
I see no difference and certainly have no "issues" pertaining to it
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Really? Since when are full grown men born, able to walk and talk?
Everything was created intact, including trees bearing fruit which pre-dated the sun.
God did not leave evidence that the world was old. He told us EXACTLY how He created it, in what sequence, and how long ago. He gave us the generations that existed from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Jesus. By telling us how old the world is He gave us the information we would need thousands of years later when people who reject the Biblical explanation of the Creation attempt to convince us that the world is millions of years old and that it was NOT created by God. How could that POSSIBLY be considered planting false evidence? Don't blame God that the false interpretations of man don't align with His word. He created a mature world, ready to support life. If we choose to believe our science teachers instead of our Lord, that's our failing, not His.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
