Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
science is not a matter of plebiscite. The theory that best explains the observed evidence with the least contradictions is the one considered "most correct"Many disagree with your interpretation of the evidence here.
There is evidence, especially in the Bible but also from personal observations, that the earth is flat. Does that mean that it is possible that the earth is flat?
There is much more evidence that the earth is flat than there is that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event. There are still Christians today who believe with all their heart that the earth is flat based upon a literal and historical interpretation of several passages in the Bible. And there are, with even less evidence to support their belief, still Christians today who believe with all their heart that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event. However, I respect your right to believe as you choose to.
you can disagree all you like. But unless you have empirical evidence to back up your position, well, you won't convince many peopleI disagree.
So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
(my bold)13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Everything on earth will perish.
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [h] , 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf!
Rut, I think your insistance that "sudden-death" fossils necessarily indicate a global flood is misplaced. Moreoever, I think you will find other YECs here, like laptoppop, who will agree with me (since, according to "global flood models", the Flood wasn't necessarily violent. Nor are mammoths found in Paleozoic/Mesozoic rocks, which YECs ).
I also don't think you are aware that every living geologist accepts catastrophy in the fossil record (i.e. not necessarilly gradualism), and are more than willing to accept localized, catastrophic events. I can point to the sedimentary record and show you examples of landslides, dune collapses, turbidites, river swells, asteroid impacts, etc. All these things could kill animals with a bolus of food still in their mouth. Geologists reject the global Flood account because there is simply no evidence for it (and much evidence against it, in most cases).
Have the geologist gone away of the thought now that was a tropical temerature on the polar regions?
Remember too that in the Bible it say that the weather change after the Flood.The Bible talks about things that the Bible have nevere talked about before Genesis 9:13,
8:22
I find a intresting website about what we have talked about for example Was the ark large enough? How many types of animals did Noah need to take.I don`t sure if I can post it
Might I add that all the evidence is against anyone coming back to life, after having been dead a couple of days?
Unlike the theories surrounding millions and millions of years of evolution, you can test death again and again and again. The evidence for not rising from death is much stronger than the evidence used to hypothesize millions of years of evolution. It's been scientifically proven, through millions of 'experiments', that you cannot rise from death. Therefore, the Bible must be wrong in this case. There must is no truth in a literal reading in the resurrection myth. It has to be a lie.
Even worse than geocentrism?
- "Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'" - John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72
You should also have added
e. there is evidence which could not possibly exist if a global flood had occurred, especially a recent one.
That was better worded than anything I could write, right now.Well, that's really the point of my question. It is simply not reasonable to say there is no evidence of a global flood simply because e. is true, or assuming e. is true. Said otherwise, there is no such thing as absolute rule-out evidence in science as a general proposition (straw men such as the flat earth need not apply).
The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood. The massive mats of flotsom that underly the permafrost near the artic circle are similarly best explained by a global flood.
Even if we assume that they are reasonably explained by a global flood, as opposed to conditions "best explained" by that event, the result is the same.
It means that one must deal with the aggregation of evidence in a complex world. Such evidence is always somewhat conflicting. That is a fact that cuts on both sides. But, admitting it changes the nature of the debate.
When you have evidence of enormous catastrophism or even incredible changes such as seashells in the yellow band on Everest, the notion that one can rule out anything in this complicated, largely unexplored, earth is an enormous act of hubris. Logically it just doesn't work.
In a world of conflicting evidence, what happens when you put Genesis on the table as evidence (which is where it belongs)? Fear of the Lord happens. Open-mindedness happens. That the surface text is surface text after all happens as a meaningful proposition.
My objection to TE is that TE won't allow "some evidence" of a flood to be evidence at all. Because, if you can do that, then it is easier to deny that there is a surface text in Genesis that means what it says (right or wrong). If you completely rule out ANY evidence for a flood, you are less likely to worry about whether the surface text of Genesis is evidence at all.
I don't worry as much that TEs have formed a reasoned conclusion on the basis of the evidence. In that process, you weigh conflicting evidence. But, when you presume to completely rule out the possibility that conflicting evidence has any meaning at all, you have just ruled out the ability of God to speak and man to hear, except by your rules.
Well, that's really the point of my question. It is simply not reasonable to say there is no evidence of a global flood simply because e. is true, or assuming e. is true.
Said otherwise, there is no such thing as absolute rule-out evidence in science as a general proposition (straw men such as the flat earth need not apply).
The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood. The massive mats of flotsom that underly the permafrost near the artic circle are similarly best explained by a global flood.
It means that one must deal with the aggregation of evidence in a complex world.
When you have evidence of enormous catastrophism or even incredible changes such as seashells in the yellow band on Everest, the notion that one can rule out anything in this complicated, largely unexplored, earth is an enormous act of hubris. Logically it just doesn't work.
In a world of conflicting evidence, what happens when you put Genesis on the table as evidence (which is where it belongs)?
My objection to TE is that TE won't allow "some evidence" of a flood to be evidence at all.
If you completely rule out ANY evidence for a flood, you are less likely to worry about whether the surface text of Genesis is evidence at all.
The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood.
When you have evidence of enormous catastrophism or even incredible changes such as seashells in the yellow band on Everest, the notion that one can rule out anything in this complicated, largely unexplored, earth is an enormous act of hubris. Logically it just doesn't work.
You mean like 'sunrise' and 'sunset' are best explained by geocentrism?busterdog said:Well, that's really the point of my question. It is simply not reasonable to say there is no evidence of a global flood simply because e. is true, or assuming e. is true. Said otherwise, there is no such thing as absolute rule-out evidence in science as a general proposition (straw men such as the flat earth need not apply).
The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood. The massive mats of flotsom that underly the permafrost near the artic circle are similarly best explained by a global flood.
Even if we assume that they are reasonably explained by a global flood, as opposed to conditions "best explained" by that event, the result is the same.
If we take the surace text of Genesis as eyewitness testimony of the events, we still don't have a global flood, because the eyewitnesses can only describing what they saw.My objection to TE is that TE won't allow "some evidence" of a flood to be evidence at all. Because, if you can do that, then it is easier to deny that there is a surface text in Genesis that means what it says (right or wrong). If you completely rule out ANY evidence for a flood, you are less likely to worry about whether the surface text of Genesis is evidence at all.
Actually I find YECs very closed minded about the meaning of the textIn a world of conflicting evidence, what happens when you put Genesis on the table as evidence (which is where it belongs)? Fear of the Lord happens. Open-mindedness happens. That the surface text is surface text after all happens as a meaningful proposition.
Try this one. Very irreverently tongue in cheek, but I bet it raises a lot of questions you never considered before.
http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm
I have read this website.What is the questions that I have never considered before? If I understand this website correct I have found the answers for what they ask forwhat I can see.So what question should I think more about?
Even if we can`t find every single answer on our questions I believe what it say here in 2 Thimothy 3:16
That have shown many times that the Bible have correct against the science for example about health
How about why did neither the Egyptians nor the Chinese notice a world-wide flood occurring?
I suppose you have read alot of books and make up your mind as me.When I have look in the internet I have seen many website against and for the Flood.
Do you mean with this question about Egyptian and Chinese that they say that the flood haven`t been?
When I search for it I find website that said that Egyptian knows about the Flood.They even celebrate the day - 17 Athyr - they say that the flood began that date. I give you a link for that http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/ancientsknew.html
About the Chinese can you go to Wikipedia and search for the deluge.There can you read about the chinese thoughts
I can try to look up you other questions too if you really want that
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?