Is there evidence for both old earth AND world-wide Flood?

[kenneth558]

Anyone here accept BOTH old earth & worldwide flood? I'm interested in those who have some scientific (geologic, maybe?) understanding of this. I am pondering how/why a person would hold to both. Or can they? Specifically this: how would you conclude whether any particular set of data/findings is evidence for the Flood? Thank you!

 

[Bushido216]

You could conclude that it is "evidence for the Flood" if it can only be explained by a Flood.

 

[Deamiter]

That SOUNDS like a good standard, but it's not really useful. Young earth creationists are taking evidence that has fit snugly into an old earth model and trying to explain it in the context of a literal reading of the Bible. Personally, I believe the evidence is STRONGLY toward an old earth, but I truly seek the truth in ALL areas of my faith.

In my opinion (and in the Christian groups that I study physics with) something can be considered to be convincing evidence FOR a flood if it is BETTER explained by a flood model than by an old earth. For example, here is a thread in the Open discussion forum on the Coconino sandstone formations near the Grand Canyon.
http://www.christianforums.com/t50735

This layering that a flood model claims was created in less than a year seems rather silly when you consider that the tracks that are lauded to SUPPORT the flood would have had to have been created under 300 feet of water, after MONTHS submerged for the lower layers to form, with insects and amphibians desprately trying to run away from rising waters on TOP of sand dunes that had not formed yet... (?)

The layering near the Grand Canyon has for a long time been presented as a strong point for the flood, but if you actually consider what the evidence SHOWS, it doesn't make sense at all.

On that note, there may be evidence that does not fit so snugly into an old earth picture, but I have yet to see this evidence be interpreted as a whole to support a flood. There are many snippets out there on different 'facts' that are supposed to destroy the idea of an old earth, but taken together, they often contradict each other, or contradict other hypotheses set up to explain OTHER parts of the flood.

To get back on topic, I have never heard of anybody who believed both in an old earth and a worldwide flood. To be honest, if I heard of a model that could explain consistantly (i.e. worldwide) where in the strata the flood actually happened, I would seriously consider this view, but as it stands, I believe that an old earth AND a flood are pretty incompatable.

 

[lucaspa]

Personally, I believe the evidence is STRONGLY toward an old earth, but I truly seek the truth in ALL areas of my faith.

In my opinion (and in the Christian groups that I study physics with) something can be considered to be convincing evidence FOR a flood if it is BETTER explained by a flood model than by an old earth. For example, here is a thread in the Open discussion forum on the Coconino sandstone formations near the Grand Canyon.
http://www.christianforums.com/t50735

This layering that a flood model claims was created in less than a year seems rather silly when you consider that the tracks that are lauded to SUPPORT the flood would have had to have been created under 300 feet of water, after MONTHS submerged for the lower layers to form, with insects and amphibians desprately trying to run away from rising waters on TOP of sand dunes that had not formed yet... (?)

What you have here is what you should do: falsification. Don't look for evidence supporting. Instead, look for evidence falsifying a theory. You have that in the Coconino sandstones. If the Flood were true, there is no way that it could have formed the Coconino Sandstones. Therefore, since true statements can't have false consequences -- a false consequence being the Coconino Sandstones -- then the statement -- worldwide Flood -- is false.

The layering near the Grand Canyon has for a long time been presented as a strong point for the flood, but if you actually consider what the evidence SHOWS, it doesn't make sense at all.

On that note, there may be evidence that does not fit so snugly into an old earth picture, but I have yet to see this evidence be interpreted as a whole to support a flood. There are many snippets out there on different 'facts' that are supposed to destroy the idea of an old earth, but taken together, they often contradict each other, or contradict other hypotheses set up to explain OTHER parts of the flood.

To get back on topic, I have never heard of anybody who believed both in an old earth and a worldwide flood. To be honest, if I heard of a model that could explain consistantly (i.e. worldwide) where in the strata the flood actually happened, I would seriously consider this view, but as it stands, I believe that an old earth AND a flood are pretty incompatable.[/QUOTE]

 

[lucaspa]

Anyone here accept BOTH old earth & worldwide flood? I'm interested in those who have some scientific (geologic, maybe?) understanding of this. I am pondering how/why a person would hold to both. Or can they? Specifically this: how would you conclude whether any particular set of data/findings is evidence for the Flood? Thank you!

In the 1820s all geologists held to an old earth and a world-wide Flood. Rev. William Buckland -- one of the foremost geologists of his day -- used the Flood only to explain superficial gravels and morraines. It was already realized that deeper strata could not be explained as the result of a Flood. If you want to read how Buckland reasoned for his strata, you would have to find a university library that had a copy of his Reliquiae Diluvianae.

Today, of course, the Flood is necessary for YEC because, without it, YECers have no way to account for the geological and fossil record in a timespan of 6,000 years. The fossil record shows evolution and the only way to try to explain this away is to have fossils deposited by a Flood. It doesn't work because a Flood would not deposit fossils in this manner, but hey, anything rather than admit the theory is falsified.

 

[kenneth558]

I am beginning to suspect that believing in an old earth is scientifically incompatible with believing in a worldwide flood, Noah's ark, etc. Please help me understand otherwise if I am wrong. Just so you know, I personally have determined that I will believe what God tells me over what men (scientists, pastors, etc.) tell me. Therefore I am going to believe in a worldwide flood. Is there any way scientifically to reconcile belief in a worldwide flood with belief in an old earth? Has anyone scientifically minded done it?

 

[lucaspa]

I am beginning to suspect that believing in an old earth is scientifically incompatible with believing in a worldwide flood, Noah's ark, etc. Please help me understand otherwise if I am wrong. Just so you know, I personally have determined that I will believe what God tells me over what men (scientists, pastors, etc.) tell me. Therefore I am going to believe in a worldwide flood. Is there any way scientifically to reconcile belief in a worldwide flood with belief in an old earth? Has anyone scientifically minded done it?

I told you. You have to go back to the period 1800-1820 to find a reconciliation of a worldwide flood and an old earth.

The problem I have with your "I will believe what God tells me over what men (scientists, pastors, etc.) tell me" is that you deny that God created. What did God create? The earth, right? What does science study? The earth! So, what these people are doing is finding out what God tells us. Just as much as your reading the Bible does. Even more so. The Bible was written for a particular people and a particular time. You are trying to take it out of that time and impose your meaning on it. Your meaning is not necessarily what God meant when He inspired the authors. However, reading God's Creation is directly reading what God meant to say, because God could put the evidence there directly and not go thru the limited minds of humans by inspiration. God could put what really happened and then simply wait until we were old enough and smart enough as a species to figure it out.

Look at it this way. When a 3 year old asks you how the TV works, do you tell them the whole truth, or do you tell them what they can understand and what is important to them, even if that is not technically true? Then you wait until the child is older and has learned more before you tell them the whole truth in detail.

God faced the same problem explaining how He created. He told the people of the time what they could understand and the important parts: who created and why God created. He left it up to us to figure it out when we were old enough and knew more.

So I'm a little sick of this constant idea that science is different from God and that reading the Bible is of God. Interpreting the Bible is what people tell you; or what you tell yourself. Any other view is fooling yourself.

 

[nephilimiyr]

So I'm a little sick of this constant idea that science is different from God and that reading the Bible is of God. Interpreting the Bible is what people tell you; or what you tell yourself. Any other view is fooling yourself.

I'm not going to argue anything that you have said because for the most part I agree with it but can you tell me what part of Gods book of creation shows man that he has sinned and where in that book may we find the way to salvation?

 

[lucaspa]

but can you tell me what part of Gods book of creation shows man that he has sinned and where in that book may we find the way to salvation?

Why would you think we would find that message in the book of Creation? As Pope Pius said: "The Bible is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

I am not arguing throwing out the Bible. I am saying that the attitude that science is not of God is wrong. God is not found only in the Bible. You will not find all of God's message in Creation, but you won't find all of God's message in the Bible, either.

 

[Beauty4Ashes]

 

[hesalive]

What does science study? The earth! So, what these people are doing is finding out what God tells us. Just as much as your reading the Bible does.

A bit of a stretch to think that science as a whole is finding out what God tells us. Is there such an animal as secular science that does not factor in a creator God? Are they not government funded? Whose theories will get published? The scientists given the nod, or those whackos that believe in God?

Even more so. The Bible was written for a particular people and a particular time.

I'm sure glad that I am worthy of being part of that "particular people an time" or I might have missed what was being said.

Mathew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man.

Perhaps Jesus didnt know that the flood didnt really take them all away. I guess that would mean that the coming judgement wont apply to all either.

II Peter 3:5 For 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

Perhaps Peter really didnt mean the whole world.

How much of the Bible will we dispatch as figurative or that our interpretation is flawed before we stop to consider it might just be right?

 

[artybloke]

The Bible was written for a particular people at a particular time in the first instance , He'salive. Its first audience were people with no understanding of scientific method, no calculus, no way of doing historical and scientific research (heck, they didn't even have a way of making clear glass: something essential for many measuring instruments.)


So we have to read the Bible with its original intention in mind: that the Bible, through story and poetry, through symbols universally understood at the time, tells us who created and why. Understanding that the Bible was written a long time ago with a different people in mind is the first stage of understanding it for us now. The next stage is realising what our own prejudices and questions are, because they will be different from those those who first read the Bible.

Then, and only then, can we begin to see what the Bible has to say to us now. And yes its difficult. There are simple answers to every difficult question, and they're usually the wrong answers.

 

[ThePhoenix]

A bit of a stretch to think that science as a whole is finding out what God tells us. Is there such an animal as secular science that does not factor in a creator God? Are they not government funded? Whose theories will get published? The scientists given the nod, or those whackos that believe in God?

Either really. Even creationists have been published in mainstream magazines (though they never submit their articles on creationism for peer review - wonder why?).

 

[lucaspa]

A bit of a stretch to think that science as a whole is finding out what God tells us. Is there such an animal as secular science that does not factor in a creator God? Are they not government funded? Whose theories will get published? The scientists given the nod, or those whackos that believe in God?

So what if "secular science" does not factor in a creator God? Scientists who are atheists are still studying the earth, right? Back to the question: who created the earth? God. So what scientists who are atheists believe they are doing (removing God) is not really what they are doing, is it?

John Calvin figured this out. "shall we say that the philosophers [scientists] were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature?" No, he emphatically concluded, because we cannot read these scientific writings "without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude ..." In the greate edifice of human arts and sciences, constructed in part by believers and in part by unbelievers, Calvin thought that we could see "some remaing traces of the image of God, which distinguished the entire human race from the other creatures." John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15 and 2.2.17.

Mathew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man.

Perhaps Jesus didnt know that the flood didnt really take them all away. I guess that would mean that the coming judgement wont apply to all either.

Jesus was talking about not knowing. You concentrated on the "all", but the "so shall also the coming of the Son of man" refers back to the "as" in the first sentence. That's the simile. Remember, similes use "like" or "as". It is that the people were unaware of the Flood coming before it it, as people will be unaware of the coming of the Son of man until he shows up.

Jesus here is using a well-known story -- the Flood -- to make a point about the coming of the Son of man. The story doesn't have to be true for the point to be true.

II Peter 3:5 For 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

Perhaps Peter really didnt mean the whole world.

Why didn't you do the whole context from 3:3 to 3:7? Because that would reveal that your point is not well-taken. Taking the Bible out of context to get it to mean something other than it was meant to mean strikes me as something really bad to do if you really want to follow God.

Let's go on to verse 6 and 7: "But the heavens and the earth that now exist are being preserved by the same command of God, in order to be destroyed by fire. They [people who mock Christians] are being kept for the day when godless people will be judged and destroyed."

The verses have nothing to do with needing a literal Flood. Peter is also using the well-known story of destruction to give hope to his congregation. Keep the faith; the mockers will get their just desserts in time.

How much of the Bible will we dispatch as figurative or that our interpretation is flawed before we stop to consider it might just be right?

Well, considering that your interpretation of both the Matthew and Peter verses are flawed and miss the message, let's hope we keep reading the Bible as "figurative" so we can preserve its accuracy!

 

[Sinai]

Anyone here accept BOTH old earth & worldwide flood? I'm interested in those who have some scientific (geologic, maybe?) understanding of this. I am pondering how/why a person would hold to both. Or can they? Specifically this: how would you conclude whether any particular set of data/findings is evidence for the Flood? Thank you!

Although the bulk of scientific evidence supports an "old earth" (i.e., 4-5 billion years old) but does not provide proof for a worldwide flood, science has found evidence of massive flooding in both Mesopotamia and the Black Sea areas at the approximate time that Noah's flood is reported by the Bible to have occurred. Thus, one could probably accept both an "old" earth and Noah's flood without running afoul of scientific evidence.....

 

[Sinai]

In my opinion (and in the Christian groups that I study physics with) something can be considered to be convincing evidence FOR a flood if it is BETTER explained by a flood model than by an old earth. For example, here is a thread in the Open discussion forum on the Coconino sandstone formations near the Grand Canyon.
http://www.christianforums.com/t50735

This layering that a flood model claims was created in less than a year seems rather silly when you consider that the tracks that are lauded to SUPPORT the flood would have had to have been created under 300 feet of water, after MONTHS submerged for the lower layers to form, with insects and amphibians desprately trying to run away from rising waters on TOP of sand dunes that had not formed yet... (?)

The layering near the Grand Canyon has for a long time been presented as a strong point for the flood, but if you actually consider what the evidence SHOWS, it doesn't make sense at all.

Another example from the same general geographic area that also argues against a single flood being responsible for the canyon is the Uinta Mountains north of the Grand Canyon, which is a classic example of a long gradual uplift partially displacing and rerouting an existing river--but then the river cuts right through the eastern portion of the mountains.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

i think you'll find the Black Sea flood (formation) predates the Noachian legend by some 7000 years.

 

[hesalive]

Jesus here is using a well-known story -- the Flood -- to make a point about the coming of the Son of man. The story doesn't have to be true for the point to be true.

Why would Jesus use an untruth? I seem to recall that God cannot lie.

Again, a half truth is a whole lie.

Well, considering that your interpretation of both the Matthew and Peter verses are flawed and miss the message, let's hope we keep reading the Bible as "figurative" so we can preserve its accuracy!

My "flawed" interpretation is just your opinion, but none the less, I appreciate hearing yours. I simply do not have the time available to debate every point with everyone on this board. I will probably not rack up thousands of messages as I see many here have posted. I am interested in having my propositions critiqued though and thus I appreciate the critisizmes you have offered. They are helpful.

As to the "figurative", I would contend that logically, The Bible must be first approached as literal, if literal can be ruled out, then a figurative interpretation can next be explored. To automatically assume a figurative context could by definition rule out a possible truth before it has been refuted. I dont think anyone would disagree that the Bible has many figurative, metaphorical and analgous texts, but to apply a figurative to it first seems out of step with logical deductive reasoning.

Also, I would add that figurative reasoning is very subjective. Look at the diversity of opinions on the many figurative topics that are debated here. I dont think that God wants to be devisive in giving us information.

Thanks,
John

 

[artybloke]

"Why would Jesus use an untruth? "

He didn't. He used a well-known story as an illustration, in the same way he told fictional parables.

A story is not a lie. A story is told to illustrate/explore truth.

Try reading some fiction.

"To automatically assume a figurative context could by definition rule out a possible truth before it has been refuted. "

A "literal" interpretation is also a "figurative" interpretation. You're still trying to make the Bible fit a world-view (post-Enlightenment) that it was not written in. The whole Bible is full of figures, poetry, story; it's the way the people of that time explained their world to themselves.

And again. you're assuming that fact = truth. It doesn't. Facts are sometimes involved in truths; but they are not the same thing. You can sometimes teach a truth quicker by telling a story about it than by reeling off a list of facts.

"Also, I would add that figurative reasoning is very subjective. "

And ignoring scientific fact isn't?

 

[lucaspa]

Why would Jesus use an untruth? I seem to recall that God cannot lie.

Is it untrue that in the story the people were unaware that a Flood was coming until it actually started? I don't see an untruth there.

We do this all the time when making similers and metaphors. We say of two people that their romance is like Romeo and Juliet's in that their families hate each other. Romeo and Juliet are not real people and they had no real families. But in the play the fictional families do hate each other and we have all read or heard of that. So, even tho we refer to the fiction the truth about the real people's families hating each other is true. So, Jesus told a truth about how the Kingdom of God will come: no one will see it coming before it is here.

As to God being unable to lie, that would contradict God being all powerful and being able to do anything. IOW, God can lie, but chooses to tell the truth.

The key here is that there are different types of truth.

As to the "figurative", I would contend that logically, The Bible must be first approached as literal, if literal can be ruled out, then a figurative interpretation can next be explored. To automatically assume a figurative context could by definition rule out a possible truth before it has been refuted.

In terms of Genesis 1-11, we are not sure how the original audience read it. Many of us think that the original non-literal meaning was already known to the people of the time, but then got lost as people forgot the context of the time. By 1500 AD, Genesis 1-11 was assumed to be literal. When people began reading God's second book -- Creation -- it became obvious that the literal interpretation didn't work. A literal interpretation contradicted God. Since that isn't permitted, people went back and started looking at various non-literal interpretations. So, your condition has already been met in terms of Genesis 1-11. The literal interpretation was refuted.

However, I would argue that the Bible must always first be read as theology. It's a theological document, not a history or science text. Therefore, to apply a literal meaning before you first look for the theology "metaphorical and analgous texts, but to apply a figurative to it first seems out of step with logical deductive reasoning." (to use your words)

Also, I would add that figurative reasoning is very subjective. Look at the diversity of opinions on the many figurative topics that are debated here. I dont think that God wants to be devisive in giving us information.

Not divisive, but how about inclusive? IOW, instead of assuming that there is only one way to get to heaven, how about if God realized that people differ and that what works for one person won't work for another. Therefore God deliberately left many places vague so that each person could find the path that worked best for him/her? Since all the paths lead to the same end -- God -- God didn't care which path we took, as long as we took one. I notice that Jesus was very vague about just who he was. "son of man" is the most common term he used for himself, but that doesn't seem to have any precise meaning. Was that deliberate? So that people who were most comfortable viewing him as the son of God, the adopted son of God, a prophet, or just a wise teacher could all be comfortable following his words and thus coming to God. Maybe it's just our human cussedness and pride that turns a blessing -- vagueness -- into a curse -- divisiveness.