Dinosaurs would still be here.

[AV1611VET]

The scientific position on a global flood is that there is no evidence to support it, but the lack of evidence does not prevent some from believing in a global flood.

So it didn't happen?

 

[Apple Sky]

I just watched as short clip of Neil deGrasse Tyson that put things into a different perspective for me.

"Dinosaurs were around for 200 million years before the asteroid struck. And it's only been 65 million years since. So given that fact it's likely that if the asteroid did not strike, they would still be here and we wouldn't"

Neil Degrasse Tyson talks a load of nonsense listen to God & his word.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Science doesn't say it happened at any time, just that there is no evidence that it ever happened. As for the biblical date, too much is known about what was happening at that time to fit it in.

again, this is not true. many scientists look to the geological record. and see that the flood caused the things we see today. even the grand canyon was caused by the results of the flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neil Degrasse Tyson talks a load of nonsense ...

AKA science.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

AKA science.

what does he base his science on?

 

[AV1611VET]

what does he base his science on?

I don't know.

I didn't watch the video.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don't know.

I didn't watch the video.

then how can you claim he based his views on science?

 

[BCP1928]

again, this is not true. many scientists look to the geological record. and see that the flood caused the things we see today. even the grand canyon was caused by the results of the flood.

"Many" is a grotesque exaggeration. Even those few who do and also work as professional geologists don't use flood geology models in their professional work (Steve Austin comes to mind as an example.) Professional geologists are paid to find oil, gas and minerals. None of them use flood geology theory, because flood geology theory does not describe the geology of the Earth accurately and is useless for any practical purpose. With respect to a 3rd millennium flood, there is also archaeology to consider, which pretty much eliminates a flood all by itself.

 

[Apple Sky]

AKA science.

 

[ViaCrucis]

actually, all geographical evidence points to a global flood.

Someone should tell the geologists that, it would be a major contribution to the field.

Unfortunately centuries of geological work has continued to provide no evidence for a global flood; but we have drastically improved our understanding of the earth and the geological forces that continue to shape the planet, from plate tectonics to orogeny.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

again, this is not true. many scientists look to the geological record. and see that the flood caused the things we see today. even the grand canyon was caused by the results of the flood.

Who are these "scientists" that says this? What are their credentials? What journals have they contributed to?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Eternally Grateful]

"Many" is a grotesque exaggeration. Even those few who do and also work as professional geologists don't use flood geology models in their professional work (Steve Austin comes to mind as an example.) Professional geologists are paid to find oil, gas and minerals. None of them use flood geology theory, because flood geology theory does not describe the geology of the Earth accurately and is useless for any practical purpose.

ok, You have me here.

I am talking about creation scientists.

With respect to a 3rd millennium flood, there is also archaeology to consider, which pretty much eliminates a flood all by itself.

When I look at the evidence, I see the apposite to be true.

again, science used to say the grand canyon was formed by a river, that is mostly rejected today as further evience shows that would not even be possible (the river would have to run uphill)

Even the fossil record if one really looks at it. points to a flood. not age

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Unfortunately centuries of geological work has continued to provide no evidence for a global flood;

Again, this is false..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Who are these "scientists" that says this? What are their credentials? What journals have they contributed to?

-CryptoLutheran

do you believe it was formed by a river still? You do realise they now know that the river would have had to run uphill to do this?

also. the mini canyon formed when Mt St Helens blew up and formed the mini canyon, lends support of a breakup of a 2 major lakes left after the flood is the most likely cause.

do you believe in the bible? I guess I will ask before I go on..

 

[AV1611VET]

then how can you claim he based his views on science?

Because he talks nonsense, according to another poster.

And if he did, it must have been because he was talking science.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Because he talks nonsense, according to another poster.

And if he did, it must have been because he was talking science.

so you do not believe there can be any good science?

 

[Frank Robert]

More than that, there is considerable evidence that if there was a global flood, it didn't happen in the 3rd millenium BC.

Noah's flood may have happened, but not over the whole earth. Several posters have claimed that there is (scientific)? evidence for a such a flood, yet no one has presented any evidence for a global flood.

If a global flood had occurred, scientists would likely find widespread evidence of marine fossils at high elevations across continents, extensive sedimentary rock layers with rapid deposition features, large-scale sorting of fossils across different regions, and potential disruptions in geological sequences, all suggesting a catastrophic inundation event that covered vast areas of the Earth with water.

So it didn't happen?

If there is evidence for a global flood that can be backed up with science, we don't know what it is because no one, including you has shared it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Someone should tell the geologists that, it would be a major contribution to the field.

If geologists won't listen to the Bible, why would they listen to us?

Unfortunately centuries of geological work has continued to provide no evidence for a global flood;

So it didn't happen?

... but we have drastically improved our understanding of the earth and the geological forces that continue to shape the planet, from plate tectonics to orogeny.

Good.

That's the way it should be.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If a global flood had occurred, scientists would likely find widespread evidence of marine fossils at high elevations across continents, extensive sedimentary rock layers with rapid deposition features, large-scale sorting of fossils across different regions, and potential disruptions in geological sequences, all suggesting a catastrophic inundation event that covered vast areas of the Earth with water.

They have found widespread evidence of all these things

 

[ViaCrucis]

do you believe it was formed by a river still? You do realise they now know that the river would have had to run uphill to do this?

I'm unaware of an alternative scenario that has received scientific consensus.

also. the mini canyon formed when Mt St Helens blew up and formed the mini canyon, lends support of a breakup of a 2 major lakes left after the flood is the most likely cause.

do you believe in the bible? I guess I will ask before I go on..

Yes, I believe in the Bible. Though I almost certainly interpret it differently than you do on a good many issues. I largely subscribe to historical methods of interpretation, e.g. Christologically. Which also means that there are parts of Scripture I take literally that you probably don't (e.g. "This is My body") and there are parts of Scripture that I don't take literally that you probably do (e.g. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth").

-CryptoLutheran