Different state past

[dad]

In fact, the Bible says NOTHING about radioactive decay at all, doesn't it?

It does mention that things in heaven will not undergo processes like corruption or rusting.

 

[verysincere]

... the meaning is clear. No evidence or science exists to say that there was no flood. Period.

There's plenty.

To say "no evidence or science exists" is simply covering your eyes and ears. (I'm fine if you want to say that you don't find the evidence convincing. But to say the science doesn't exist is either dishonest or totally uninformed.)

As the old saying goes, "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But not their own facts." How much investigation of the science did you carry out before deciding there was "no evidence"? Or does simply making arbitrary claims represent how you approach reality?


1) The Haymond Formation in Texas is probably one of the best known. Global flood advocates claim that those geologic layers were all formed during the year of the flood but the 15,000 layers alternate sand and shale so that each layer shows animal burrows which were buried in sand intrusions. It is absurd to claim that all of those layers could be formed underwater in a single year.

2) Cave karsts are yet another. Their structures can only form above water and yet we find them deep underground. Check out the Ellenberger Caves, 11,000 feet below the surface. How could they form under global flood conditions as "creation scientists" claim?

Glen Morton is a professional geologist who has worked in the oil industry for years. He published many articles as a Young Earth Creationist but eventually he was overwhelmed by the evidence for an "old earth" and he was unable to find ANY evidence for a global flood. (And like many of us, he eventually realized that the Bible describes a "world-wide" flood in terms of impacting all of Noah's world, but definitely not global. Indeed, ERETZ in Hebrew is usually translated "land" or "country" and is hard to construe as "global.")

Morton has published a great deal of evidence which clearly indicates that there was no global flood. Many of his articles denying "flood geology" claims can be read at:

Texas Ellenburger Caves and the Global Flood

 

[dad]

There's plenty.

To say "no evidence or science exists" is simply covering your eyes and ears. (I'm fine if you want to say that you don't find the evidence convincing. But to say the science doesn't exist is either dishonest or totally uninformed.)

As the old saying goes, "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But not their own facts." How much investigation of the science did you carry out before deciding there was "no evidence"? Or does simply making arbitrary claims represent how you approach reality?


1) The Haymond Formation in Texas is probably one of the best known. Global flood advocates claim that those geologic layers were all formed during the year of the flood but the 15,000 layers alternate sand and shale so that each layer shows animal burrows which were buried in sand intrusions. It is absurd to claim that all of those layers could be formed underwater in a single year.

2) Cave karsts are yet another. Their structures can only form above water and yet we find them deep underground. Check out the Ellenberger Caves, 11,000 feet below the surface. How could they form under global flood conditions as "creation scientists" claim?

Glen Morton is a professional geologist who has worked in the oil industry for years. He published many articles as a Young Earth Creationist but eventually he was overwhelmed by the evidence for an "old earth" and he was unable to find ANY evidence for a global flood. (And like many of us, he eventually realized that the Bible describes a "world-wide" flood in terms of impacting all of Noah's world, but definitely not global. Indeed, ERETZ in Hebrew is usually translated "land" or "country" and is hard to construe as "global.")

Morton has published a great deal of evidence which clearly indicates that there was no global flood. Many of his articles denying "flood geology" claims can be read at:

Texas Ellenburger Caves and the Global Flood

NO evidence does exist against the flood of Noah. Really. I looked into it. A lot. I am sure. Been there done that. Go ahead...show us some if you doubt! Now as for the flood doing all the depositing...forget about it. No. I used to lean towards flood geology till I looked into it more. Pre flood formations. Simple. Irrefutable. Wonderful.

 

[verysincere]

NO evidence does exist against the flood of Noah. Really. I looked into it. A lot. I am sure. Been there done that. Go ahead...show us some if you doubt! Now as for the flood doing all the depositing...forget about it. No. I used to lean towards flood geology till I looked into it more. Pre flood formations. Simple. Irrefutable. Wonderful.

I have no problem with the idea of Noah's Flood. I simply deny the idea of a GLOBAL FLOOD, because:

1) The Bible makes no claims of a GLOBAL (planet-wide) FLOOD. Noah's ERETZ, his "land" or "region" was the scene of the flood. Did it extend into other regions? The Bible doesn't say.

2) There is no scientific evidence for a GLOBAL flood.

3) Now, if you want to claim that you have evidence of some regional flood which would conform to the Biblical description of Noah's Flood, I'm fine with that idea and would like to see your evidence.


>"NO evidence does exist against the flood of Noah."

Now that's a strange way to try and make the statement. But if you are claiming that the flood of Noah was GLOBAL, there's plenty of evidence against it---by virtue of the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD.

Glen Morton was a geologist who spent years trying to "prove" a global flood. He not only failed, he came to realize that there was NO EVIDENCE for a global flood. So, he "changed sides" in the debate.

I give you a whole page of his links. You replied with your post within a few minutes so I know that you didn't read them. As to your claims that you have thoroughly researched the topic, I don't believe you. (And not just because I doubt your knowledge of geology. I've read many of your posts and you regularly make illogical statements and you constantly dismiss evidence which doesn't conform to your preferences for reality.)

Now if you would like to explain why Morton's position (and that of the world's geologists) are all wrong and your position should be preferred, how about some kind of evidence?

 

[dad]

I have no problem with the idea of Noah's Flood. I simply deny the idea of a GLOBAL FLOOD, because:

That is Noah's flood, global and killing all life.

1) The Bible makes no claims of a GLOBAL (planet-wide) FLOOD.

Yes. It does.

Noah's ERETZ, his "land" or "region" was the scene of the flood. Did it extend into other regions? The Bible doesn't say.

All people and mountain tops on earth were in Noah's region? Quite a tale.

2) There is no scientific evidence for a GLOBAL flood.

Or against one. That merely speaks to the inadequacy of science.

3) Now, if you want to claim that you have evidence of some regional flood which would conform to the Biblical description of Noah's Flood, I'm fine with that idea and would like to see your evidence.

Insulting to the word of God.

>"NO evidence does exist against the flood of Noah."

Now that's a strange way to try and make the statement. But if you are claiming that the flood of Noah was GLOBAL, there's plenty of evidence against it---by virtue of the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD.

False. No evidence against the flood anyhow any way anywhere, period. Absolutely not.

Glen Morton was a geologist who spent years trying to "prove" a global flood. He not only failed, he came to realize that there was NO EVIDENCE for a global flood. So, he "changed sides" in the debate.

Hey maybe he will turncoat again. So?

I give you a whole page of his links. You replied with your post within a few minutes so I know that you didn't read them. As to your claims that you have thoroughly researched the topic, I don't believe you. (And not just because I doubt your knowledge of geology. I've read many of your posts and you regularly make illogical statements and you constantly dismiss evidence which doesn't conform to your preferences for reality.)

Do NOT rely by spamming links. Make a point. Use links for support in case your case is doubted.

Now if you would like to explain why Morton's position (and that of the world's geologists) are all wrong and your position should be preferred, how about some kind of evidence?

Easy, they assumed that the present word represented the laws at the time oof the flood. They don't. The rest is simple.

 

[rambot]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

In fact, the Bible says NOTHING about radioactive decay at all, doesn't it?
​

It does mention that things in heaven will not undergo processes like corruption or rusting.

So what? The bible says his people shouldn't eat shrimp. That ALSO has no bearing on radioactive decay.

 

[dad]

So what? The bible says his people shouldn't eat shrimp. That ALSO has no bearing on radioactive decay.

False. Believers can eat whatever is set before them. The diet restrictions were for a former time. The future will see no rust or corruption. These are results of a present state and the processes and laws here. They will no longer apply. Lions will evolve fast apparently, so that they eat grass, not flesh any more as well. Need more?

 

[Tiberius]

It does mention that things in heaven will not undergo processes like corruption or rusting.

Fine. Woop dee doo.

Are we in Heaven? No? Then this is irrelevant.

The Bible says NOTHING AT ALL about radioactive decay.

 

[Tiberius]

NO evidence does exist against the flood of Noah. Really. I looked into it. A lot. I am sure. Been there done that. Go ahead...show us some if you doubt! Now as for the flood doing all the depositing...forget about it. No. I used to lean towards flood geology till I looked into it more. Pre flood formations. Simple. Irrefutable. Wonderful.

The only reason that you reach this conclusion is because you've invented a way of handwaving it all away. Never mind that it is all speculation and you haven't got a single shred of evidence to actually support your position.

 

[dad]

Fine. Woop dee doo.

Are we in Heaven? No? Then this is irrelevant.

The Bible says NOTHING AT ALL about radioactive decay.

The bible covers the future as well as the past and present. Science wallows like a guppy in a drying pool.

 

[dad]

The only reason that you reach this conclusion is because you've invented a way of handwaving it all away. Never mind that it is all speculation and you haven't got a single shred of evidence to actually support your position.

False. The reason I know is because countless little posters failed to prove that there was no flood. I know you have nothing. Wanna talk evidence? Or you wanna dance the koochie koo all night? This is a science forum. So if you claim to have evidence agaonst the flood that even Jesus confirmed, now would be a good time to present it.


Careful though I am not in a tender mood, and if you put something on the table, it will be breakfast.

 

[verysincere]

The only reason that you reach this conclusion is because you've invented a way of handwaving it all away. Never mind that it is all speculation and you haven't got a single shred of evidence to actually support your position.

He's developed hand-waving into a fine art.

I finally began to understand his posts once I deciphered the one which claimed that no evidence does not exist to not prove there's no evidence for not being a global flood.

 

[verysincere]

So if you claim to have evidence against the flood that even Jesus confirmed, now would be a good time to present it.

First you need to provide some kind of evidence that Jesus claimed that the flood was global. Otherwise you are simply "insulting the Bible" (as you put it.)

"The world" and "planet earth" are not the same thing. If you are unaware of that, welcome to the world of Internet remedial education. (That was a HINT.)

Genesis describes a year-flood that killed everyone except for Noah's extended family. There is no mention of a global, planet-wide flood. Even after the flood, mankind stayed in one area. So a regional flood would be sufficient to judge sinful humanity at the time of Noah.

Of course, that most natural interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures explains perfectly why there is ZERO evidence for a global flood. Indeed, if you had ANY evidence for a global flood, you would have presented it by now. [I know, because I've studied the geology. Sound familiar? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.]

 

[dad]

First you need to provide some kind of evidence that Jesus claimed that the flood was global. Otherwise you are simply "insulting the Bible" (as you put it.)

Easy peasy.

Here it comes.....

Mt 24:39 -And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away;

"The world" and "planet earth" are not the same thing. If you are unaware of that, welcome to the world of Internet remedial education. (That was a HINT.)

All men killed save 8 overrides that.

Genesis describes a year-flood that killed everyone except for Noah's extended family. There is no mention of a global, planet-wide flood. Even after the flood, mankind stayed in one area. So a regional flood would be sufficient to judge sinful humanity at the time of Noah.

Silly. Speculation. You now claim that all men on earth lived in Noah's town. Absurd. Really.

Of course, that most natural interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures explains perfectly why there is ZERO evidence for a global flood.

Zero against it.

Indeed, if you had ANY evidence for a global flood, you would have presented it by now. [I know, because I've studied the geology. Sound familiar? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.]

To find evidence for the flood in the layers and fossils on earth would require some knowledge of when it was and what happened since that would have affected the evidence. Science isn't up to that level yet.

 

[verysincere]

To find evidence for the flood in the layers and fossils on earth would require some knowledge of when it was and what happened since that would have affected the evidence. Science isn't up to that level yet.

So you are saying that not only do local floods leave absolutely no evidence of their destruction, a GLOBAL FLOOD that covered the entire planet for a year would leave NO EVIDENCE which science can detect.

Is that the kind of sheer speculation that you were talking about?

Yes, if there is ANYTHING that we would expect to leave no evidence at all, it would most definitely be a worldwide, year-long flood.

Yes, you have officially gone right off the rails. LaLa Land must be a wonderful place.

(You elevate denial to a rare art form. I would have asked you if Noah preached repentance to all of mankind by sailing around the world to visit a scattered humanity in every land........but I've learned that it is a waste of time. Rational analysis can take a hike.)

 

[Cromulent]

False. The reason I know is because countless little posters failed to prove that there was no flood. I know you have nothing. Wanna talk evidence? Or you wanna dance the koochie koo all night? This is a science forum. So if you claim to have evidence agaonst the flood that even Jesus confirmed, now would be a good time to present it.

And you still haven't proved the earth wasn't created last Thursday. Do you have any evidence against that? Didn't think so. You've stopped even "dancing the koochie koo", and are now just flat out ignoring anyone who posts this.

You've been defeated. And you're defeated again every time you can't prove the world existed before last Thursday. Change your tag line.

Careful though I am not in a tender mood, and if you put something on the table, it will be breakfast.

I've put Last-Thursdayism on the table at least six times. You've not even been able to nibble at the hash browns. I'd really love to see you make "breakfast" of something, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you still haven't proved the earth wasn't created last Thursday.

God proved it by divine fiat -- in Writing.

 

[Cromulent]

God proved it by divine fiat -- in Writing.

Nice try. Prove the bible isn't just evidence planted by the Creator (may her dress float gracefully in the breeze). Like the Qu'ran, the Sutras, or the Hindu scriptures.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice try. Prove the bible isn't just evidence planted by the Creator (may her dress float gracefully in the breeze). Like the Qu'ran, the Sutras, or the Hindu scriptures.

No, thanks.

I'm busy proving Last Thursday is not a Biblical concept.

Looks like you'll have to get your hash browns from McDonald's.

 

[Cromulent]

No, thanks.

I'm busy proving Last Thursday is not a Biblical concept.

Looks like you'll have to get your hash browns from McDonald's.

I never said it was a biblical concept. The bible can take a hike. It's false evidence planted by the Creator (may chocolate and cinnamon be sprinkled on all her desserts). And you've yet to prove otherwise.