Flood Geology and conglomerate rock

[Hans Blaster]

The point of the post is about conglomerate rock. We are talking about gradualism. How things are formed over time and in layers. A day in genesis one may be a literal 24-hour day. But they also represent long periods of time. YEC & OEC can both be true at the same time. One is literal, the other is symbolic.

The point I was addressing was about an "underground ocean" that isn't. Not sure what you're original point was.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, that's just like "new age" fables.

It's scientific, not "new age" and there are no talking animals involved so it is not a "fable".

 

[Aaron112]

"Politics, education, literature, science, art, law, commerce, music - such are the things that constitute the cosmos, and these are things that we meet daily. Subtract them and the world as a coherent system ceases to be. In studying the history of mankind we have to acknowledge marked progress in each of these departments. The question however is: In what direction is this "progress" tending? What is the ultimate goal of all this development? At the end, John tells us, antichrist will arise and will set up his own kingdom in this world (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7; Rev. 13). That is the direction of this world's advance. Satan is utilizing the material world, the men of the world, the things that are in the world, to head everything up eventually in the kingdom of antichrist. At that hour the world system will have reached its zenith; and at that hour every unit of it will be revealed to be antiChristian."

from a witness of Jesus in China

 

[dlamberth]

No, that's just like "new age" fables.

I'm fairly certain that the elements formation is not new age woo-woo stuff.

 

[Diamond7]

The point I was addressing

You do seem to have a problem getting your point across to people.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You do seem to have a problem getting your point across to people.

Other than my type-o of "article" my post #7 seems perfectly clear as a response to post #4. That post (#4) was a distraction from your original post (#1) and I was trying to quickly put down the #4 distraction from your thread. Others seemed to have no problem following my post. Did you not check what I was responding to before quoting a single phrase from my post?

 

[Diamond7]

No, that's just like "new age" fables.

You do not know the difference between Science and Fables. I have a copy of Neil Degrasse Tyson's book on Astrophysics. I have a lot more regard for his science than I do for your fables. What university did you get your PhD from that makes you an expert on what is Science and what is a Fable?

 

[Aaron112]

You do not know the difference between Science and Fables. I have a copy of Neil Degrasse Tyson's book on Astrophysics. I have a lot more regard for his science than I do for your fables. What university did you get your PhD from that makes you an expert on what is Science and what is a Fable?

What the Creator Reveals as something being false and /or not to be trusted, ever, I likewise call false and do not trust, ever.

 

[Ophiolite]

You do seem to have a problem getting your point across to people.

@Hans Blaster's point was clear, as was your avoidance of that point. What was not clear is why you avoided addressing his point. It looked like you didn't want to concede that you may have misunderstood the significance of the information you had earlier shared.

 

[dlamberth]

What the Creator Reveals as something being false and /or not to be trusted, ever, I likewise call false and do not trust, ever.

I think what's going on here in regard to the Earth sciences is human imagination of what God reveals as false.

 

[Hans Blaster]

@Hans Blaster's point was clear, as was your avoidance of that point. What was not clear is why you avoided addressing his point. It looked like you didn't want to concede that you may have misunderstood the significance of the information you had earlier shared.

To be fair to @Diamond7 their misunderstanding of my point was related to a my response to the offtopic content of post #4 and not the OP. I have nothing to say about the OP since I've never taken any geology and a response to that would seem to need a bit more than my scant geological knowledge.

 

[Diamond7]

What was not clear is why you avoided addressing his point.

You have to make a valid point before I am going to address it.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Only if by man's thinking. Jesus rebuked and rebukes man's thinking. Turn to the Creator, for His Kingdom is at hand ///// or is it still ??

If by thinking you mean logic, I have to wonder.
Logic is logic regardless of whose mind it is flowing through. I realize the are many believers whose bottom line argument against every problem in their teaching is "God is too big to understand..". Which is true if we are talking about volume. But if we are talking about His thoughts actually making sense, then I have to disagree. There is nothing about any truth that renders it beyond our ability to understand it. As a systems analyst, it is my job to break down complicated systems into their base components and create applications for computers. God is completely logical and everything He says makes sense and no two truths within His logos contradict. We do not know everything in His knowledge set, this is very true. But what things we do know are completely within our ability to perceive and comprehend. Those things we do not know are referred to in the scripture as "mysteries." But even when these mysteries are finally revealed, they will fit right into the logos of God with no contradictions and we will be able to put one thought together with all other thoughts and understand. As I said, there is nothing in the nature of the spiritual or theism that somehow renders it beyond our ability to perceive and there is nothing makes it beyond our ability to understand. 1 plus 1 is 2 whether it flows through the mind of God or the mind of a 5 year old human.