Fossil Record not consistent with Global Flood

[Ophiolite]

We could spend the next 34,286 pages of this thread providing more examples that demonstrate the nonsense of the so-called evidence presented by Abraxos. However, I shall address one single piece of evidence (Evidence 3) and ask that Abraxos respond to my questions on it.

I, like The Cadet, fully acknowledge that there are many examples of rapid deposition of sediment. Two questions for you Abraxos.

1. The reason we know those sediments were deposited rapidly is that they have the characteristics of sediments we see deposited rapidly today. We are applying the principle that the present is the key to the past. What is the justification for accepting this principle in this instance, but rejecting it when it is used to explain other observations that run counter to YEC assertions?

2. The examples of rapid deposition of sediment are frequently overlain by sediments that have been deposited under gentler conditions and then by further sediments deposited rapidly. How do you explain these observations?

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm pretty sure it's against forum rules to post apologetics in the science forum.

This rule always confused me. The definition of "apologetics", as far as I can see is:

"of the nature of a formal defense or justification of something such as a theory or religious doctrine."

Now, can someone tell me how any post on here is NOT a formal defense or justification of a theory or religious doctrine?

The way I see it, atheists and Christians on this site are all using apologetics to get their point across.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This rule always confused me. The definition of "apologetics", as far as I can see is:

"of the nature of a formal defense or justification of something such as a theory or religious doctrine."

Now, can someone tell me how any post on here is NOT a formal defense or justification of a theory or religious doctrine?

The way I see it, atheists and Christians on this site are all using apologetics to get their point across.

Basically, the way I see it is that if you start posting verses from a religious text, that's apologetics. If you start talking unnecessarily about a religious concept or text, that's apologetics.
But that's just me though.

 

[JacksBratt]

Basically, the way I see it is that if you start posting verses from a religious text, that's apologetics. If you start talking unnecessarily about a religious concept or text, that's apologetics.
But that's just me though.

If that was the case, no Christian would be able to back up their post with scripture. For me, that is my starting point.

Also, if the Bible is my text, is not the Origin of Species and other books of information and papers with peer reviews not the text for the evolutionists?

It seems to me that there is a lot of apologetics going on here then.

 

[lasthero]

If that was the case, no Christian would be able to back up their post with scripture. For me, that is my starting point.

Also, if the Bible is my text, is not the Origin of Species and other books of information and papers with peer reviews not the text for the evolutionists?

It seems to me that there is a lot of apologetics going on here then.

Sounds like something you should ask the mods.

 

[JacksBratt]

IF we choose a definition of apologetics such as the practice of defending a position through the use of information, then you are correct. The dispute then arises because scientific information may be tested and validated, or refuted. No one need accept the findings of Darwin or any scientist on faith. However, the religious position would tend towards the assertion that the Bible is "correct". The requirement is that it be accepted as the word of God on faith. So in a practical sense the two approaches are quite different.

I think you guys are missing my point. All I am saying is that if using scripture from the Bible makes it "apologetics" then I am using apologetics all the time. So are many other Christians and even atheists, when making a point, will use the scripture.

I just think it's kinda funny to have a "physical and life science" category on a Christian forum and expect people to not use scripture. Thus making it impossible for a Christian to stay within the rules.

 

[Aman777]

<staff edit>
There is NO conflict between Science and History IF you have the proper understanding of Genesis chapter One. That is because Genesis One is the ENTIRE History of God's 6 Days/Ages (Heb-yowm-period of time) of the Creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven. This includes events which will NOT take place (Gen 1:28-31) until Jesus returns to our Planet and changes all living creatures into Vegetarians. Gen 1:30 Amen?

 

[Radrook]

There is tons of evidence that the Bible is true and that the story of Noah is accurate. This is what domestication is all about and this is how farming spread from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

Here is an interesting article on the subject of Noah's Flood:

Does science prove Noah's flood?

Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.
holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/does-science-prove-noahs-flood/#vBA8sOEbwiArwSjI.99

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/does-science-prove-noahs-flood/

 

[Loudmouth]

<staff edit>
If the Bible is true, then you should be able to come to the same conclusions with the scientific evidence alone.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is an interesting article on the subject of Noah's Flood:

Walt Brown's ideas were fully exposed decades ago. Continents moving thousands of miles in a few days and superheated steam killing all life were serious problems for his model.

 

[Aman777]

Walt Brown's ideas were fully exposed decades ago. Continents moving thousands of miles in a few days and superheated steam killing all life were serious problems for his model.

Scripture tells us that Adam's world (Kosmos) was totally destroyed in the Flood. That means that it was NOT our world (Cosmos) which was destroyed but the world that THEN WAS ll Peter 3:6 which was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8 Our Cosmos and the 3rd Heaven were made on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 Those who TRY to teach that it was our world which was destroyed, are Wrong. Our Earth is covered in water but Rocks don't clean dissolve Isa 24:19 in water like Adam's world did. Amen?

 

[Radrook]

Walt Brown's ideas were fully exposed decades ago. Continents moving thousands of miles in a few days and superheated steam killing all life were serious problems for his model.

I am not a supporter of his ideas because I am as yet not intimately familiar with his ideas. However, claims of exposure are very common and easy to proclaim so I am still not convinced either way until I become more familiar with his views and read the attempted rebuttals of his views in detail in order to determine whether they hold any water.

 

[Hieronymus]

Chiming in rather late, but i have this thought:

"not consistent with global flood"

This implies we're able to know and actually know how exactly the flood did its job, which is obviously a bit of a stretch...

 

[Jimmy D]

Chiming in rather late, but i have this thought:

"not consistent with global flood"

This implies we're able to know and actually know how exactly the flood did its job, which is obviously a bit of a stretch...

Wouldn't it have left some sort of evidence or clues though? (I appreciate that your understanding of the subject is over a hundred years out of date so you might not be aware of advances in the fields of geology or biology.)

 

[joshua 1 9]

But I have an open mind: can you point me to where in the Bible the scientific method is proposed, developed, introduced, choose your own past participle.

Every nation made a contribution to what is now considered to be Science. The Assyrians for example invented the wheel and they were the first to use it on the chariot for war. They waged a war against Egypt and defeated them because of their advanced technology. Then Egypt developed their own technology for war and they became a powerful nation. The Bible gives us a written history of the development of civilization from the beginning. The Bible is a very accurate history book. Along with the artifacts that are discovered through archaeology. The Phonics and the first alphabet comes from the Phoenicians, they were a Semitic people. According to Wiki the Semitic people are the descendants of Noah. If you are asking about the Muslims they are descended from Ishmael the son of Abraham and Hagar. Christians are adopted into the family of God and they call Abraham their father. So what non Abrahamic people are you thinking made a contribution? Sense farming, civilization and science all began pretty much with the Semitic people.

 

[Aman777]

Every nation made a contribution to what is now considered to be Science. The Assyrians for example invented the wheel and they were the first to use it on the chariot for war. They waged a war against Egypt and defeated them because of their advanced technology. Then Egypt developed their own technology for war and they became a powerful nation. The Bible gives us a written history of the development of civilization from the beginning. The Bible is a very accurate history book. Along with the artifacts that are discovered through archaeology. The Phonics and the first alphabet comes from the Phoenicians, they were a Semitic people. According to Wiki the Semitic people are the descendants of Noah. If you are asking about the Muslims they are descended from Ishmael the son of Abraham and Hagar. Christians are adopted into the family of God and they call Abraham their father. So what non Abrahamic people are you thinking made a contribution? Sense farming, civilization and science all began pretty much with the Semitic people.

Amen. This confirms that the Ark arrived in Lake Van, Turkey some 11k years ago. Here is the dating of it's arrival. Lake Van is between Mt Ararat and Northern Mesopotamia, the cradle of human civilization on this Earth.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Amen. This confirms that the Ark arrived in Lake Van, Turkey some 11k years ago. Here is the dating of it's arrival. Lake Van is between Mt Ararat and Northern Mesopotamia, the cradle of human civilization on this Earth.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

Just as a map with London on it confirms the Harry Potter books.

 

[Aman777]

This is the science forum, not the preaching forum. If you can't back your arguments with evidence, then don't make them.

<staff edit>

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

NO Evolutionist has been able to refute (prove wrong) this scientific historic evidence that the Ark arrived in Lake Van, Turkey, 11k years ago bringing the first Humans (descendants of Adam) to this world of creatures who evolved from the common ancestor of Apes.<staff edit>

 

[Aman777]

Just as a map with London on it confirms the Harry Potter books.

The Map of the Fertile Crescent shows where the FIRST AGRICULTURE took place on Planet Earth. I's just southwest of Lake Van, Turkey, where the Ark arrived bringing Adam's descendants (humans) to this Planet of Great Apes. Agriculture, city building, writing and EVERY other trait of modern Humans is First evidenced there no matter how many dodges Evolutionists dream up.

Show us other evidence of modern Humans before the Ark arrived. Remember that drawing stick pictures and learning to use rocks to break another's skull don't count. Amen?

 

[Loudmouth]

The Map of the Fertile Crescent shows where the FIRST AGRICULTURE took place on Planet Earth.

That isn't the claim you are making, however.