After the Flood!

[archaeologist]

Reality contradicts a global flood as well, so what do you propose if neither scenario is valid

not at all. a global flood is the only thing that makes sense and does what God describes. no loose ends.

 

[Mallon]

not at all. a global flood is the only thing that makes sense and does what God describes. no loose ends.

If all of geology can explained by a global flood with "no loose ends," why do you suppose so few geologists subscribe to such a scenario? Like many other YECs, do you think that the majority of the world's geologists are so set against God that they will cling to a fruitless, non-functional paradigm (costing billions of dollars a year) just to avoid the inevitable conclusion that stems from Flood geology?

 

[Jase]

On a side note - There's actually a theology to this. In the beginning of creation, remember that the waters covered the face of the earth and the spirit of God hovered over the water, then the separation of waters from land, etc..

Then the earth became corrupt, its stench reaching up to heaven. (If something stinks, you wash it) So now He mingles them back together again so the world is returned to its pre-creation state: the whole earth is once again covered in water.. then soon onward we have a dove hovering over the waters.. and again a separation of the waters from land. (The next time in Scripture we see a dove hovering over water is the Baptism of Christ).

Sounds like the perfect candidate for a metaphorical story to me.

Well, for that matter so is evolution.

Evolution doesn't require endless miracles to explain. I fail to see how it's just as inefficient as a global flood.

 

[Jase]

not at all. a global flood is the only thing that makes sense and does what God describes. no loose ends.

Makes sense to who? The only people it makes sense to are the scientifically ignorant creationists, and they are a minority. Evidentiary wise, it doesn't fit whatsoever.

 

[laptoppop]

Makes sense to who? The only people it makes sense to are the scientifically ignorant creationists, and they are a minority. Evidentiary wise, it doesn't fit whatsoever.

Are you saying all creationists are scientifically ignorant? You would be greatly mistaken, and the concept of interpreting the evidence in light of a global flood makes sense to a lot of very scientifically educated folks.

Actually I would say that both YEC and evolution have issues to deal with related to the physical evidence. YEC fits the actual evidence better than evolution - but especially given the tiny number of YEC researchers, there's a lot more to be looked into.

However, of the two - YEC fits the Scriptural record of a flood, while evolution does not. A global flood would leave huge effects and deposits, etc -- and that is exactly what we observe in the geologic strata. Given the choice between two possibilities, I will always prefer the one consistent with Scripture.

 

[plainswolf]

Sounds like the perfect candidate for a metaphorical story to me.

As I said 'on a side note'.. however, just because something is heavy on symbolism doesn't mean it is only symbolism. Passover was a symbolic sacrifice/ritual but it was also a real, literal one as well.

Evolution doesn't require endless miracles to explain. I fail to see how it's just as inefficient as a global flood.

That was my bad, I mis-read what you wrote orgionally.. my apologies.



+

 

[laptoppop]

Evolution doesn't require endless miracles to explain. I fail to see how it's just as inefficient as a global flood.

Just to be clear, most YECs would say that the flood does not require "endless miracles" either. Yes, God miraculously led the animals to the Ark and shut the door. Somehow, He caused rain and water from under the earth -- but it could easily have been an asteroid strike or somesuch. The vast majority of the geologic strata are totally consistent with the deposition mechanisms to be expected in a global flood. Not with a simplistic model of the flood to be sure, but consistent with the things one should expect from a dynamic global event.

 

[archaeologist]

The only people it makes sense to are the scientifically ignorant creationists

i am not scientifically ignorant and i am a creationist so you may have a problem there. there is more to the story than just a global flood destroying the pre-flood civilization.

besides evidentery discoveries can be wrong. how would you go about digging up evidence for a global flood considering the fact that in the past 5000 years there have been numerous local ones, tsunamis and other events which would destroy what was left behind?

one cannot say it was local because a). which local flood would they refer to (that is if they could discover and separate the evidence from all the other local floods that took place in the area since that time)
b) how does a local flood show that it was from God and that God alone did it?

 

[archaeologist]

Evolution doesn't require endless miracles to explain. I fail to see how it's just as inefficient as a global flood.

yes it does because it would certainly take miracles for that theory to actually operate as described. the initial life form originating would take a great miracle.

the process and natural selection forming and influencing would take a great miracle

a male and female of the same species meeting and mating, or even living in the same region would take a great miracle.

sorry but evolution is in desperate need of help to function as evolutionists want it to.

 

[Mallon]

Of course the Flood requires countless miracles, pop. It requires magic to herd the animals onto the ark, to seal the door, to set your catastrophic plate tectonics in motion, to flood the entire earth (there's no mention of an asteroid in the Bible, by the way), to blow the waters off the earth again, to maintain the health of the animals on the ark, etc., etc., etc. That's more ad hoc than any scientist should be comfortable with. It's untestable, and therefore provides no explanatory value in understanding the history of the earth.
(And no, the "vast majority of strata" are not consistent with your Flood model. You've admitted time and again that you don't even have a model because the Flood was too "complex" to set parameters for. I really wish you would quit with the hearsay and present something tangible here that we can all have a look at.)

 

[laptoppop]

Of course the Flood requires countless miracles, pop. It requires magic to herd the animals onto the ark, to seal the door,

"magic"??? Aww, c’mon Mallon – this is not exactly how I would describe God's direct actions.

to set your catastrophic plate tectonics in motion, to flood the entire earth (there's no mention of an asteroid in the Bible, by the way),

The Bible says that God caused it. It does not specify how. It could have been through natural or supernatural means. Yes, asteroid is just a guess of a possible way.

to blow the waters off the earth again,

Actually, the post flood activities, including receding waters, winds, ice age, etc. are reasonably explainable by natural processes, especially with expected tectonic activity because of the shifting weight of the water if nothing else, as well as the freezing of the polar caps, etc.

to maintain the health of the animals on the ark,

Perhaps, but people who have studied the ark and possible designs, etc. have come up with reasonable explanations, consistent with the Scriptural record that explain airflow, waste disposal, etc. Personally I think (but its just my opinion with no real evidence) that God, having helped to get the critters on board, helped Noah & co. to care for them by having the critters hibernate.

etc., etc., etc.

Like what?

That's more ad hoc than any scientist should be comfortable with. It's untestable, and therefore provides no explanatory value in understanding the history of the earth.

You cannot test history. If you persist on saying it is "untestable" then neither is evolution. YEC specifically predicts that one would find worldwide geologic strata consistent with a global flood. This can be discussed and tested. However, I insist we discuss it using real dynamics and not overly simplistic views.

(And no, the "vast majority of strata" are not consistent with your Flood model.

On the contrary, the vast majority of strata are consistent with a global flood.

You've admitted time and again that you don't even have a model because the Flood was too "complex" to set parameters for.

Please. Do we have to visit this again? Sheesh. I have "admitted" that there is no single computer model for the entire flood covering every square foot of the planet minute by minute for the time of the flood. There are a variety of models which cover various parts of the flood, including currents and material transport over continents, hypercane and atomospheric effects, etc. ICR has a small supercomputer and program specifically dedicated to doing more and more modeling of various kinds. But note: there is not a 100% accurate model of even current weather. Why are you insisting on one for a time over 4000 years ago? Understanding GLOBAL dynamics is difficult - and has not been achieved by ANYONE except in very simplified form. Models that try to do things on a global basis, such as those used to investigate global warming are much coarser than what I think you are asking for, and are heavily disputed and being worked on all the time to incorporate a new variable, etc. Each variable introduces a whole new set of interactions. So you can ask for the impossible - but it just isn't fair.

I really wish you would quit with the hearsay and present something tangible here that we can all have a look at.)

The best that can be done IS THE SAME THAT IS DONE WITH CONVENTIONAL GEOLOGY. One looks at the formations and talks about how they could have been formed. There is no complete model for conventional geological formation any more than there is a complete model of the flood. However, we can look and discuss each site and determine if it is consistent with a global flood model.

I know it frustrates you that the dynamics of a local flood are quite varied, and the expectation is that the dynamics of a global flood are even more so -- but it is the prediction of the results of a global flood. Very likely, with more researchers and time - lots of time, we can form a more and more coherent picture of how all the sites stitch together - but for now, we just don't have that for conventional geology, let alone flood geology. Each discuss various sites or areas and discusses how they may have been formed without full integration over time and geography.

 

[archaeologist]

REMEMBER PEOPLE in both this and the creation is outside threads that:

1. if God mentioned every detail He did, the Bible would be too thick and no one would read it

we are reminded of this in the gospels when it says that to record all that Jesus did would take an enormous amount of books to hold his acts.

2. where would faith be if God provided every little piece of information you require.

the Bible says 'without faith you cannot please God' if God provides all the evidence you want then faith would be destroyed and we could not please Him.

3. God did things to remove all doubt as to who did it. a local flood would not accomplish this fact.

4. they who say the follow God need to check to see if the BELIeVE Him. it isn't just a matter of faith but a matter o fbelief as well and that doesn't mean just the easy parts but includes a global flood and creation in 6 days.

 

[philadiddle]

Given the choice between two possibilities, I will always prefer the one consistent with Scripture.

The Bible says that God put the earth on it's pillars, I guess you'll have to discard the scientific evidence that says otherwise, since it's obviously flawed.

 

[archaeologist]

let's not get stupid either. science cannot go beyond its boundaries and too many people think it can. science, like archaeology or history, does not have all the information, it needs to determine what took place.

when it sticks to its realm of investigating how things work then it is good but when it appoints itself or is elevated to positions it was not given by God, like the decider of what took place and when, then its data is skewed, incomplete and outside its scope.

there are too many options available which science does not consider when doing its research into the flood.

 

[Citanul]

the initial life form originating would take a great miracle.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life - that's abiogenesis (although admittedly, the two are linked).

a male and female of the same species meeting and mating, or even living in the same region would take a great miracle.

So it was a great miracle that my parents met and had me?

 

[archaeologist]

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life - that's abiogenesis (although admittedly, the two are linked).

come on, that is the evolutionary escape clause to wiggle out of a tight spot.

So it was a great miracle that my parents met and had me?

and miracles come from God not some unknowing, unfeeling, non-thinking, and so on, process.

It requires magic

come on, magic is an illusion and cannot be used to describe what God can and did do.

 

[Mallon]

"magic"??? Aww, c’mon Mallon – this is not exactly how I would describe God's direct actions.

By "direct actions" do you mean miracles? If so, what's the difference between magic and miracle? I don't know what offends you about the usage of one word and not the other.

The Bible says that God caused it. It does not specify how. It could have been through natural or supernatural means. Yes, asteroid is just a guess of a possible way.

pop, there is no amount of water either beneath the crust of the earth or in the sky that could possibly flood the entire earth. It would take a miracle to do that. And try as you might to account for the Flood via natural phenomena -- either by appeal to an asteroid or to a vapour canopy or whatever -- there is no scientific evidence for either scenario, contrary to your opinion that the Flood has any sort of scientific merit whatsoever. (Besides, an asteroid smashing into the earth would have the effect of vapourizing water -- not unleashing it).

Actually, the post flood activities, including receding waters, winds, ice age, etc. are reasonably explainable by natural processes, especially with expected tectonic activity because of the shifting weight of the water if nothing else, as well as the freezing of the polar caps, etc.

This is just talk, pop. If you want to make a convincing case, you're going to have to provide more than just ad hoc and hearsay. Show me a Flood model that depicts water transgression and regression, cyclical ice ages, and rapid plate tectonics (that doesn't take 20 million years to kick-start).

You should change your name to adhocpop.

Personally I think (but its just my opinion with no real evidence) that God, having helped to get the critters on board, helped Noah & co. to care for them by having the critters hibernate.

... which would be a miracle. Thousands of animals hibernating out of season at the same time. That's magic.

You cannot test history.

Sure you can. History leaves traces that we can test. We put murderers in prison all the time because we can use forensic science to test history.

If you persist on saying it is "untestable" then neither is evolution.

Evolution is testable because it posits natural explanations for natural phenomena.
The biblical Flood story is not testable because of its reliance on supernatural explanations. And the supernatural cannot be tested by science... unless you would like to provide an example as to how we might objectively test for God.

On the contrary, the vast majority of strata are consistent with a global flood.

Name some. I'm just going to keep insisting that you're wrong until you can actually put a name to strata that are consistent with a global flood. What about the Morrison Formation? Is it consistent with the Flood? How about the Tendaguru Formation? Is it consistent with the Flood? Or what about the Chinle Formation?

But note: there is not a 100% accurate model of even current weather. Why are you insisting on one for a time over 4000 years ago?

Because, pop, you keep going on and on and on about how much better Flood geology explains the world's strata than conventional geology. And then when the gloves come off and you're actually asked to account for your words, you always resort to the following rhetoric:

Understanding GLOBAL dynamics is difficult - and has not been achieved by ANYONE except in very simplified form.

That is to say, you complain about how complex the Flood would have been, you whine about how difficult it is to model, and you regret how hard it is to come up with predictions that we can verify with ground truth.
But tomorrow you will be back at it again -- claiming how much better Flood geology is at explaining the fossil record! You've admitted that you aren't even sure which strata are Flood strata and which aren't! That's not much of an explanation at all, pop.

However, we can look and discuss each site and determine if it is consistent with a global flood model.

Why not take shernren up on his challenge in this thread, then? For all the confidence you exude about how well Flood geology can explain "the vast majority of strata", you've been mighty quiet there.

Very likely, with more researchers and time - lots of time, we can form a more and more coherent picture of how all the sites stitch together - but for now, we just don't have that for conventional geology, let alone flood geology.

pop, if it were not for our ability to use conventional geology to "stitch sites together", we would not be able to recreate maps like this:

Conventional geology can and has done lots to account for and correlate the world's strata. Please don't pretend that Flood geology is on par with conventional geology by dragging the latter down to the level of the former.

 

[archaeologist]

pop, there is no amount of water either beneath the crust of the earth or in the sky that could possibly flood the entire earth. It would take a miracle to do that

i don't know about that. researchers recently claimed they discovered a water source the size of the arctic ocean under the surface.

the truth is, we do not know how much water is under the surface nor do we know the total amount of water in the atmosphere either.

maybe most of you have not lived in asia but when the monsoons come, we get storms that can provide up to 11 inches of rain in an hour, there is a lot more water around than people give credit for.

Evolution is testable because it posits natural explanations for natural phenomena.

i will disagree. there is nothing in science that proves or demonstrates the evolutionary process in action. at best it is wishful thinking and hyperbole, inference but not one piece of 'evidence' can show evolution at work or was responsibile.

And the supernatural cannot be tested by science

science isn't the final authority on any matter, its limitedness disqualifies it as having any definitive say and where in the Bible does God direct us to use science to prove His acts?

God tells us to have faith but not disbelief. nor does he say to use secular thinking, methods, ideas and so on. the christian once, saved from sin, is to avoid all the trappings of the world and secular scientific thinking, etc., is one of those things.

which brings us to the core of the problem. christians HAVE accepted secular/human constructs and seek to fit the Bible to what secular people say it should be. doesn't work that way.

 

[Galle]

i don't know about that. researchers recently claimed they discovered a water source the size of the arctic ocean under the surface.

An amount that is rather less than what creationists need.

the truth is, we do not know how much water is under the surface nor do we know the total amount of water in the atmosphere either.

You can only put so much water into the atmosphere before it starts to condense out. As for sticking the water beneath the surface of the Earth, maybe you ought to find it there first before claiming that it once existed on the surface.

maybe most of you have not lived in asia but when the monsoons come, we get storms that can provide up to 11 inches of rain in an hour, there is a lot more water around than people give credit for.

Monsoons occur over a limited area, not the entire Earth. Additionally, they never provide a 9km depth of water over even this limited area.

i will disagree. there is nothing in science that proves or demonstrates the evolutionary process in action. at best it is wishful thinking and hyperbole, inference but not one piece of 'evidence' can show evolution at work or was responsibile.

You are not just wrong, but are being extremely deceptive. Resistance to antibiotics in bacteria is one example of evolution. ERVs is an example of molecular evidence which shows evolution. Biogeography was one of the fields of evidence that evolution was originally conceived to explain.

science isn't the final authority on any matter, its limitedness disqualifies it as having any definitive say and where in the Bible does God direct us to use science to prove His acts?

Science is a method for explaining the world around us. As long as you make factual statements, science can evaluate those statements.

God tells us to have faith but not disbelief.

God didn't tell us to be stupid. God didn't endorse ignorance. God didn't raise dishonesty to a virtue, even if that dishonest is ostensibly done in His service.

which brings us to the core of the problem. christians HAVE accepted secular/human constructs and seek to fit the Bible to what secular people say it should be. doesn't work that way.

Unless you prayed this anti-science message onto the internet, even you have accepted secular/human constructs. If you're going to reject one, you have to reject all of them. If you accept one (such as medicine or thermodynamics), you'd better accept all of them.

 

[KerrMetric]

i don't know about that. researchers recently claimed they discovered a water source the size of the arctic ocean under the surface.

A truly miniscule amount of water in the grand scheme of things.

the truth is, we do not know how much water is under the surface nor do we know the total amount of water in the atmosphere either.

But we can put very strong constraints on this - constraints that totally rule out global flood rubbish.

maybe most of you have not lived in asia but when the monsoons come, we get storms that can provide up to 11 inches of rain in an hour, there is a lot more water around than people give credit for.

But this not magic appear from nowhere water - it's all completely understood and accounted for.

i will disagree. there is nothing in science that proves or demonstrates the evolutionary process in action. at best it is wishful thinking and hyperbole, inference but not one piece of 'evidence' can show evolution at work or was responsibile.

You can disagree all you want but you are still wrong - and wrong for that commonest reason of all - ignorance of the facts.