Flood Question

[Vance]

If it was only a local flood why didn't God just tell Noah to move instead of spending several decades building this big boat. Moving would have been much more sensible, don't ya think?

No, not at all. Here is a good explanation by someone else that I saved on my computer:

"If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord."
and
"If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened."

 

[Micaiah]

Hint: we have reviewed all the psuedo-science presented on sites like AiG and ICR and their arguments just don't hold up in the least.

I notice that we do not have any of the 'scientific evidence' you claim Vance to back up your statements, only references to other peoples claims. I'm not convinced you really know or understand the assertions they make.

Lets hear you give a simple explanation in your own words of the evidence that supports your claims, your interpretation of the evidence, and the underlying assertions inherent in that interpretation.

 

[Vance]

I notice that we do not have any of the 'scientific evidence' you claim Vance to back up your statements, only references to other peoples claims. I'm not convinced you really know or understand the assertions they make.

Lets hear you give a simple explanation in your own words of the evidence that supports your claims, your interpretation of the evidence, and the underlying assertions inherent in that interpretation.

Well of course I would not list out all the evidence and arguments in a single thread, that would be impossible. There is simply too much of it, and it is too detailed to post that way, it simply can not do it all justice. And, we should not have to reproduce and rewrite the same evidence afresh for every new person that comes along and asks the same types of questions. Not a fault of theirs, since I don't think there is a search function to find out what has been discussed. But no, it is ridiculous to expect us to rewrite the evidence every single time.

When I get back on Monday, I will be happy to track down all the hard work that has been done compiling all the evidence and and arguments and provide links to those threads. If Jason would like something else, I will see if I can accomodate him.

In the meantime, it might be useful if those who claim to have scientific evidence FOR a worldwide flood present it all here on this forum (as we have done against a worldwide flood), since this has never been done before. Again, we have seen the stuff on those Creationist sites and they don't hold up, but if you want to cut and paste them, we can show you the flaws again.

 

[Micaiah]

I'll save you the trouble. Give me the one you consider to be the most convincing in your own words please.

 

[bluejeans]

Flood answer: "The Grande Canyon" In Arizona, "The Permian Basin "in Texas,and
Many,many places in New Mexico prove it did happen,amen.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Flood answer: "The Grande Canyon" In Arizona, "The Permian Basin "in Texas,and
Many,many places in New Mexico prove it did happen,amen.

I would suggest that floodwaters cannot possible cut out carved tight meanders like this

I would further suggest that it is impossible for flood waters to lay down thick layers of limestone, overtop them with gritstone, and then lay down further layers of limestone, and finally a layer of gritstone again, as seen here:

, especially given that the limestone is composed almost entirely of the fossils of tiny coral polyps.

If you think it could, please describe the process. I submit that these two observations falsify the hypothesis that the flood waters laid down the sedimentary strata.

 

[Vance]

The MOST convincing? Gosh, that would be hard to say. I would say that the way the fossil record exists in discreet layers that could not possibly have been laid down by a global flood within the last 10,000 years. Or maybe the cultures which existed, and continued to exist, before and after the flood date adopted by the leading Creationist groups based on a literal, plain reading of Scripture. Or maybe varves, or canyons like the Grand Canyon. Really, though, it is all the evidence taken as a whole. The sheer weight of it all together that makes it impossible to deny.

 

[Vance]

BTW, here is the link to the threads which provides so many falsifications if a global flood:

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I notice Bluejeans has not been back to answer my criticisms of her one-line "evidence".

I take it she accepts that she's wrong?

 

[Micaiah]

Or maybe varves, or canyons like the Grand Canyon.

Lets have a look at this one then. I previously requested the following.

Lets hear you give a simple explanation in your own words of the evidence that supports your claims, your interpretation of the evidence, and the underlying assertions inherent in that interpretation.

 

[mhess13]

I notice Bluejeans has not been back to answer my criticisms of her one-line "evidence".

I take it she accepts that she's wrong?

She isn't wrong and isn't admitting defeat by her absence.Some people have lives outside of forumworld. She may even be suspended. I talked to her last week and she had 3 warnings already. So she may be serving out a month's time...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

She isn't wrong and isn't admitting defeat by her absence.Some people have lives outside of forumworld. She may even be suspended. I talked to her last week and she had 3 warnings already. So she may be serving out a month's time...

If she's not wrong, and you know it, perhaps you can explain the points in my last post.

Or are you like nearly every other YEC in this place and will run a mile from any real discussion of the evidence, because you know it shows up your pseud-science for the baseless mumbo-jumbo that it is?

 

[Vance]

Lets have a look at this one then. I previously requested the following.

Sure thing. I am in the middle of a lecture series on archeology as it happens and the last lecture was on varves and dendrochronology, so I can do this from memory (btw, did you know that we have Bristlecone Pine tree ring sequences going back 8,000 years?).

Varves are the annual sediment layers that build up in the bottom of glacial lakes. Each year there is an inundation from the glacier melt which brings both heavy and light sediment. The heavy sediment immediately sinks and coats the bottom of the lake. During the winter, the lighter sediment then settles on top of this. Thus, they can simply count the layers, two per year, one of heavy sediment, one of light. They have studied this as it happens each year in many lakes since it was discovered in the late 1800s and it holds true.

Now, there are some old lakes (Green River varves are the most talked about) which have varves going back millions of years (literally, millions of these double layers), but YEC's argue that varves can form more than once a year. Thus, the earth need not be millions (much less billions of years old). There are lots of problems with the argument because there are sites with more than 20,000,000 varves, which is still 50,000 years if we assume a varve a day! (which is not possible, anyway).

but I don't even need those examples because the YEC proposition for the flood is about 2400 BC, based on a literal reading of the genealogies. The varves found in Scandanavian lakes show an uninterrupted sequence of annual varves going back to the last ice age. These have been cross-compared and match up, so that there is no doubt that they are annual.

This makes a recent global flood impossible, since any such flood would necessarily cause a major break in the cycle. There isn't one.

Not to mention, of course, that it proves that earth is not just 6,000 years old, or even 10,000 years old.

 

[In Christ Forever]

If we read "the whole of the land that we live in" (or a similar phrase, given the context) rather than the "whole earth", the story makes just as much sense.

So, with two different possible translations of the Hebrew, one referring to a local area, which matches with the scientific evidence and which is actually a more common use of the word, the other which has been shown to be not scientifically possible and is a less common usage in Scripture, why would you choose the latter?

If one reads and studies the book of revelation, one will find that it is also not a "worldwide" judgement or wrath, but on a country and city.
In fact, there is one verse in it that definately fits an "end of an heaven and earth" scenario, and is in fact an end of an Old Convenant AGE, Jerusalem.
The words world, earth, land, ground and AGE have to be interpreted correctly [which few bible do, the KJV being the WORST]
So the book of revelation itself can prove that the flood was not a worldwide event, but a prophecy of Judgement and wrath coming on an age of people after the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ and the bringing in of the age of Grace and Faith that is of Him.


Book of Revelation: The Flood of Wrath on a Great City:

reve 9: 9 And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings [was] like the sound of chariots with many horses running into battle. 10 They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails. Their power [was] to hurt men five months.

Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Why would God "cover" the whole "earth" just to destroy a City?[and a City is being destroyed in revelation as a matter of fact!]

jeremiah 46: 6 "Do not let the swift flee away, Nor the mighty man escape; They will stumble and fall Toward the north, by the River Euphrates. 7 "Who [is] this coming up like a flood, Whose waters move like the rivers? 8 Egypt rises up like a flood, And [its] waters move like the rivers; And he says, 'I will go up [and] cover the earth, I will destroy the city and its inhabitants.' 9 Come up, O horses, and rage, O chariots! And let the mighty men come forth: The Ethiopians and the Libyans who handle the shield, And the Lydians who handle [and] bend the bow.

The word "world" is mistranslated so much in the KJV, I quit using it a long time ago.

KJV reve 13:3 And [I saw] one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world[#1093 land, ground] marveled and followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who [is] like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"

 

[In Christ Forever]

bump or discussion. Was the flood worldwide or local? Was it a prophecy on the coming of Christ and God dwelling in His people instead of just manifestions as in the OT? Is revelation showing a new heaven and earth in respect to a whole world or a change of "convenants", OC vs NC.

For example. The author of Hebrews refers to a shaking of the heavne and earth. Is this referring to the whole world, or the end of an AGE, such as the destruction of the OC temple and Jerusalem?

Hebrew 12:25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more [shall we not escape] if we turn away from Him who [speaks] from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven." 27 Now this, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God [is] a consuming fire.

1 corin 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing [it.] For the form of this world is passing away.
Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Oi! Where's my flood geology explanation of Ingleborough and the Grand Canyon meanders?

Oh, yes, that's right. There isn't one; these features alone falsify the idea of a world wide flood. Why not do the intellectually consistent thing and reject it?

 

[Micaiah]

Sure thing. I am in the middle of a lecture series on archeology as it happens and the last lecture was on varves and dendrochronology, so I can do this from memory (btw, did you know that we have Bristlecone Pine tree ring sequences going back 8,000 years?).

Varves are the annual sediment layers that build up in the bottom of glacial lakes. Each year there is an inundation from the glacier melt which brings both heavy and light sediment. The heavy sediment immediately sinks and coats the bottom of the lake. During the winter, the lighter sediment then settles on top of this. Thus, they can simply count the layers, two per year, one of heavy sediment, one of light. They have studied this as it happens each year in many lakes since it was discovered in the late 1800s and it holds true.

Now, there are some old lakes (Green River varves are the most talked about) which have varves going back millions of years (literally, millions of these double layers), but YEC's argue that varves can form more than once a year. Thus, the earth need not be millions (much less billions of years old). There are lots of problems with the argument because there are sites with more than 20,000,000 varves, which is still 50,000 years if we assume a varve a day! (which is not possible, anyway).

but I don't even need those examples because the YEC proposition for the flood is about 2400 BC, based on a literal reading of the genealogies. The varves found in Scandanavian lakes show an uninterrupted sequence of annual varves going back to the last ice age. These have been cross-compared and match up, so that there is no doubt that they are annual.

This makes a recent global flood impossible, since any such flood would necessarily cause a major break in the cycle. There isn't one.

Not to mention, of course, that it proves that earth is not just 6,000 years old, or even 10,000 years old.

Just for the record, what are your qualifications? What do you work as? Do you have any qualifications in geology?