I'm always curious how the flood cause the formation of the layers? The common thing I heard people say is it either takes huge or small amount of water to do the job. But how? How did it form the layers? The grand canyon is full of layers, shouldn't all the dirt and limestone get washed away, no markers? Just curious because sometimes it never sink in my mind. Thanks for sharing your pov.
If the flood take place, why is the grand canyon there? Shouldn't the flood washed the grand canyon away? But instead, the flood actually formed the grand canyon. Hrmmm....
Either you trust God and the Bible or you trust science and your own observations and understanding.
Proverbs 3 v5 & 6
5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Again the Bible speaking through Peter:
2 Peter 3 v4-6
for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
There is a lot of meaning in these two and a half verses, v5 tells us the Earth stood out of water and v4 that things are the same now as then, so it is still standing out of water. Science is totally baffled by this statement, but perhaps next year science will finally discover it is true.
Observation is what led Eve into sin, she looked at the apple and decided it was good to eat. And again it was desire for knowledge that led to separation from God.
Ultimately it is a simple choice; you believe science or you believe the Bible.
There are people who twist science to fit the Bible and the Bible to fit science, but they ruin both.
Some creationists quote or misquote from Darwin but not a modern biologist, or the very first idea Bethe had about stellar nucleosythesis but not his later findings. That ruins science.
Others claim the Bible says things it doesn't or doesn't say things it does to get it to sort of fit in with science. The Hebrew word for 'firmament' that holds the stars and separates the water below from the water above, is used again in Job where it clearly means something like 'cast bronze' or a 'mirror' (they were solid metal). Instead newer Bibles translate it as 'expanse' and hide the meaning.
Again there are some who claim science tells the 'what' and religion the 'why'. But the Gen 1 and 2 are full of 'whats' and devoid of the 'whys' which scientists debate.
There's the appeal to authority, that some or most great scientists were Christians. One very good physicist was Rev Polkinghorne who has managed to bridge religion and science, and was awarded the Templeton Prize for doing just that; having a 'reasonable faith'. But look at his faith, there is pretty well no literal anything in it. 'Is it really Christianity' I asked myself?
Ironically the Templeton Prize indicates that it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to get present day science and present day Christianity to agree on much of anything.
