Dinosaurs would still be here.

[BCP1928]

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 suppose you mean creationis scientists when you say "they." Nobody else believes it.

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..

It's not a question about whether one believes in the Bible, but what one believes about the Bible. All Christians believe in the Bible, taking it as the inspired word of God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Again, this is false..

Can you provide material evidence that has undergone peer review?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's not a question about whether one believes in the Bible, but what one believes about the Bible. All Christians believe in the Bible, taking it as the inspired word of God.

QFT

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I compare today's science to tares among the wheat.

There's still good science out there.

But it will soon be choked out with junk science.

Especially when the Antichrist shows up.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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

Its reality, its not a view

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

1 Peter 3: 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

1. How could the pre-flood world perish, if the flood was not global?
2. Most scientific tools used assume all things are the same since the beginning.

If that world died. and there is no evidence of that world. then how can we use any real science to prove what happened back then?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Why would I share it, when I claim God cleaned up the mess?

If science is expecting to see watermarks all over the earth, else they won't believe the Flood occurred, then they're making a big mistake.

If God showed up today and took a rib from a man like He did Adam, then cleaned up the mess ...

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

... and told him to present himself to a shrewdness of scientists for scientific scrutiny; I can almost guarantee you they would laugh him to scorn.

When God cleans a mess up, it's not like we clean messes up, leaving traces behind.

No.

When God cleans a mess up, He ... cleans ... it ... up.

And no myopic tool ever built by mankind will detect what happened.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I suppose you mean creationis scientists when you say "they." Nobody else believes it.

Last thing I read. was that few, if any scientists believed it anymore. because we now know the river would have had to defy gravity in order to do it (the base of the river at the entrance of the canyon, and the exit at sea level shows that the river would have had to flow uphill. and carved the canon.

It's not a question about whether one believes in the Bible, but what one believes about the Bible. All Christians believe in the Bible, taking it as the inspired word of God.

then why would anyone not believe in a global flood. since the bible says that the waters exceeded the tallest mountain on earth by 15 Cubits (science shows in order for this to happen. there would not be any land left) and 2. As peter said, the earth perished in the flood..

 

[Apple Sky]

But it will soon be choked out with junk science.

Or more junk DNA

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Can you provide material evidence that has undergone peer review?

-CryptoLutheran

I have seen the evidence.

I have no idea of it went through peer review or not. nor do i care.

facts state otherwise..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I compare today's science to tares among the wheat.

There's still good science out there.

But it will soon be choked out with junk science.

Especially when the Antichrist shows up.

there are many scientists in the christian church who have good science.. and remember, a theory is not really science.. Science proves the theory to be true..

 

[ViaCrucis]

Its reality, its not a view

So far all I have is your say-so.

1 Peter 3: 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

1. How could the pre-flood world perish, if the flood was not global?
2. Most scientific tools used assume all things are the same since the beginning.

If that world died. and there is no evidence of that world. then how can we use any real science to prove what happened back then?

Taking Scripture out of context isn't useful. St. Peter doesn't bring up the flood for no reason, but uses it with intent.

"But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." - 2 Peter 3:7-13

The flood is used as a reminder of judgment, specifically of the future Judgment. Peter is

1) Reminding his readers to not despair or be led astray by scoffers because the time of the Parousia has not happened yet, but reminds them of God's patience for the sake of saving us.

2) To speak of judgment, and the reality of judgment--this present age has a time limit, the day will come when this present age will be burned up; the story of the flood is used typologically to speak of the future judgment. And the sober reality of future judgment means that we should consider how we live our lives. St. Paul shares a similar sentiment in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.

This has nothing to do with geology but with typology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

there are many scientists in the christian church who have good science..

No argument there.

I also believe there are scientists in the Christian church who do science in spite of the Bible.

Not with respect to It.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So far all I have is your say-so.



Taking Scripture out of context isn't useful. St. Peter doesn't bring up the flood for no reason, but uses it with intent.

"But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." - 2 Peter 3:7-13

The flood is used as a reminder of judgment, specifically of the future Judgment. Peter is

1) Reminding his readers to not despair or be led astray by scoffers because the time of the Parousia has not happened yet, but reminds them of God's patience for the sake of saving us.

2) To speak of judgment, and the reality of judgment--this present age has a time limit, the day will come when this present age will be burned up; the story of the flood is used typologically to speak of the future judgment. And the sober reality of future judgment means that we should consider how we live our lives. St. Paul shares a similar sentiment in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.

This has nothing to do with geology but with typology.

-CryptoLutheran

yes, he brought it up for a reason

In the last days their will be scoffers. saying where is the promise of his coming.

it fits perfectly.

I have seen the evidence of the Grand canyon.,

I have seen the evidence of the fossil record. In fact. I have seen how a fossil is made. Fossils are made when an animal died and is immediately buried in sediment before it has tome to decomposed. - Flood is most likely case

I have seen the evidence where different layers of sandstone as seen shows a sharp line between one type and another type. which would not occur if there were thousands or millions of years inbetween them, Not to mention. no evidence of the erosion, or plant/animal life alive during those thousands of years.

I have seen the evidence of trees who were buried and who still exist, going through multiple layers of geographic strata, again proof of a flood and not thousands or millions of years.

Now you can believe what you want. but remember, Science used to say the earth was flat.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No argument there.

I also believe there are scientists in the Christian church who do science in spite of the Bible.

Not with respect to It.

I love when science and the bible agree..

sadly, I believe there was a time when evolution gained such a strong hold in the science community. the church tries to catch up. and created alot of theories that no longer seem valid..

I remember as a teenager, I had this issue.. and then I read the GAP theory.. and I thought I had all the answer.. I could not explain dinosours and the old age of the earth.

I have since change my view on the age of the earth

 

[River Jordan]

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.

No, that's not true. Scientists moved on from the global flood about 200 years ago. The closest to any "scientists" believing it today are a tiny handful of people who work for young earth creationist ministries, where they have to agree to make all their work fit the fundamentalist interpretation of scripture (which is the opposite of how science works).

 

[River Jordan]

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?

You've studied the geological history of the Grand Canyon? Where did you get this from?

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.

That doesn't make sense. I know young earth creationists like to point to Mt. St. Helens (apparently unaware of the differences between ash and mud, and solid rock), but your take is new to me. Can you elaborate?

 

[ViaCrucis]

yes, he brought it up for a reason

In the last days their will be scoffers. saying where is the promise of his coming.

it fits perfectly.

I have seen the evidence of the Grand canyon.,

I have seen the evidence of the fossil record. In fact. I have seen how a fossil is made. Fossils are made when an animal died and is immediately buried in sediment before it has tome to decomposed. - Flood is most likely case

I have seen the evidence where different layers of sandstone as seen shows a sharp line between one type and another type. which would not occur if there were thousands or millions of years inbetween them, Not to mention. no evidence of the erosion, or plant/animal life alive during those thousands of years.

I have seen the evidence of trees who were buried and who still exist, going through multiple layers of geographic strata, again proof of a flood and not thousands or millions of years.

It would be pretty helpful if you did more than just say "Trust me" and provided a meaningful contribution.

Now you can believe what you want. but remember, Science used to say the earth was flat.

No. It did not. Educated people had known the earth is round for literally thousands of years before the advent of modern science. At no point did "science say" the earth is flat.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, that's not true. Scientists moved on from the global flood about 200 years ago. The closest to any "scientists" believing it today are a tiny handful of people who work for young earth creationist ministries, where they have to agree to make all their work fit the fundamentalist interpretation of scripture (which is the opposite of how science works).

have you looked at or read any of the science?

And no, they do not all agree..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You've studied the geological history of the Grand Canyon? Where did you get this from?

That doesn't make sense. I know young earth creationists like to point to Mt. St. Helens (apparently unaware of the differences between ash and mud, and solid rock), but your take is new to me. Can you elaborate?

the sediment layed down during the flood would not be hard rock. Hard rock can not be bent, yet we see at the grand canyon and many other places where it appears the rock layers have been bent without breaking.

in order for this to happen, it would need to still be soft..

once again, I used to be an Old Earth creationist. it was the things I have seen that changed my view.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It would be pretty helpful if you did more than just say "Trust me" and provided a meaningful contribution.

I could say the same for you

No. It did not. Educated people had known the earth is round for literally thousands of years before the advent of modern science. At no point did "science say" the earth is flat.

-CryptoLutheran

lol. Ok..

your not helping yourself out here.