- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
It does mention that things in heaven will not undergo processes like corruption or rusting.
Upvote
0
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.
In fact, the Bible says NOTHING about radioactive decay at all, doesn't it?
... 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
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.
That is Noah's flood, global and killing all life.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.
All people and mountain tops on earth were in Noah's region? Quite a tale.Noah's ERETZ, his "land" or "region" was the scene of the flood. Did it extend into other regions? The Bible doesn't say.
Or against one. That merely speaks to the inadequacy of science.2) There is no scientific evidence for a GLOBAL flood.
Insulting to the word of God.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.
False. No evidence against the flood anyhow any way anywhere, period. Absolutely not.>"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.
Hey maybe he will turncoat again. So?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.
Do NOT rely by spamming links. Make a point. Use links for support in case your case is doubted.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.)
Easy, they assumed that the present word represented the laws at the time oof the flood. They don't. The rest is simple.
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?
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?So what? The bible says his people shouldn't eat shrimp. That ALSO has no bearing on radioactive decay.
It does mention that things in heaven will not undergo processes like corruption or rusting.
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 bible covers the future as well as the past and present. Science wallows like a guppy in a drying pool.Fine. Woop dee doo.
Are we in Heaven? No? Then this is irrelevant.
The Bible says NOTHING AT ALL about radioactive decay.
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.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.
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.
So if you claim to have evidence against the flood that even Jesus confirmed, now would be a good time to present it.
Easy peasy.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.)
All men killed save 8 overrides that."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.)
Silly. Speculation. You now claim that all men on earth lived in Noah's town. Absurd. Really.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.
Zero against it.Of course, that most natural interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures explains perfectly why there is ZERO evidence for a global flood.
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.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.
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.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.
God proved it by divine fiat -- in Writing.And you still haven't proved the earth wasn't created last Thursday.
No, thanks.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.
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?