Lake Suigetsu, the Flood and Objects of Known Age

[AV1611VET]

Now does any YEC who thinks the entire world was under the waters of a global flood that totally rearranged the earth's geology a few thousand years ago have any actual explanation for the data presented in this thread?

Hi, Frumious Bandersnatch

It is not my intent to discuss anything that happened after Day Six of Creation; but thank you for the questions, anyway.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Hi, Frumious Bandersnatch

It is not my intent to discuss anything that happened after Day Six of Creation; but thank you for the questions, anyway.

The data discussed on this thread falsify a global flood in the last 50,000 years and that is the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss the Omphalos Hypothesis I suggest you do it on another thread.

 

[Baggins]

Hi, Baggins, nice to meet you.

A young earth would, of course, not support life. When you see pictures of the Garden of Eden, what do you see? Fully-grown vegetation and flora. Same with Adam and Eve: fully-grown and walking around. If Adam and Eve hadn't been created without age embedded, then they wouldn't have been able to walk with God and talk with God.

Hello AV1611VET

When you see pictures of the garden of eden what do you see

You see pictures, products of men's imagination, they aren't photographs of reality.

Don't confuse the products of man's ability to spin a yarn with physical evidence.

Adam and Eve in Eden is a pretty story and an analogy for god creating man, but it is no more than that.

A very young earth wouldn't support life, but there is evidence of life on earth for 3.8 billion years, and scientifically undiniable evidence for 2.8 billion years.

Believing in a 6 day creation a few thousand years ago is fine as a faith position but please don't try and bring science into the equation to prop up your faith, you will only succeed in making yourself look stupid, when if you leave it out of the equation you will appear principled, if to my eyes misguided, in your rejection of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You see pictures, products of men's imagination, they aren't photographs of reality.

I hope you're joking, as I just bought a digitally-remastered photograph of the Garden of Eden, as it appeared on Day Six, from a salesman who said he was in a hurry to get back to Florida and had no money.

Paid good moneyfor it, too.

 

[Baggins]

I hope you're joking, as I just bought a digitally-remastered photograph of the Garden of Eden, as it appeared on Day Six, from a salesman who said he was in a hurry to get back to Florida and had no money.

Paid good moneyfor it, too.

A creationist with a sense of humour, a rare and precious thing.

I like you

 

[DJ_Ghost]

A creationist with a sense of humour, a rare and precious thing.

I like you

Or just another Parody of one.

Ghost

 

[steen]

Hi, Steen

Who said God needed the universe to "appear" anything? My point is that He created the Universe with age embedded in it --- not: He created the Universe to appear that it has age embedded in it.

Again, according to the well-documented tenets of the Anthropic Principle, it is Adam (as well as you and I) --- not God --- that need the "unique aspects of the universe" to survive.

Which is why I am asking what Adam & Eve needed stars to show a red-shift for? How does that relate to their survival?

How then did the flora survive without the benefit of the Sun, which was created on the Fourth Day, if, say, the days were n years?

I reject literal days of any kind in Genesis 1. I see it solely and completely as an allegory.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The question for this thread is whether any believer in a recent global flood that covered the entire earth at the same time about 5,000 years ago can explain the data in the OP and the data linked in post 10 and those presented in post 20. using "flood geology". It appears not.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Bumped because the data in the OP and other posts of this thread provide clear and unrefuted evidence that geological and physical processes operating today have operated for at least the last 50,000 years with no interruption by a global flood. The YECs here have been really quiet on this one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is why I am asking what Adam & Eve needed stars to show a red-shift for?

That red-shift did nothing for Adam and Eve, but it does for us. It's testimony that the Bible is true.

How does that relate to their survival?

God put the plan of salvation in the stars - (Psalm 19). Ever wonder why it went dark from 12:00 - 3:00 when Jesus was crucified? There, just above the cross, was Aries --- the Lamb of God, Slain from the Foundation of the World.

I reject literal days of any kind in Genesis 1. I see it solely and completely as an allegory.

I would too if I had a signature like yours.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That red-shift did nothing for Adam and Eve, but it does for us. It's testimony that the Bible is true.


God put the plan of salvation in the stars - (Psalm 19). Ever wonder why it went dark from 12:00 - 3:00 when Jesus was crucified? There, just above the cross, was Aries --- the Lamb of God, Slain from the Foundation of the World.


I would too if I had a signature like yours.

This is off topic here. If you want to discuss the Omphalos hypothesis I suggest you open an other thread. (Maybe in General Appologetics)

Do you have anything to say about the scientific data refuting a recent global flood?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[AV1611VET]

Bumped because the data in the OP and other posts of this thread provide clear and unrefuted evidence that geological and physical processes operating today have operated for at least the last 50,000 years with no interruption by a global flood. The YECs here have been really quiet on this one.

That's because we can't stop laughing long enough to say anything.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That's because we can't stop laughing long enough to say anything.

In other words you are totally befuddled by scientific refutations of the YEC global flood and you have nothing to discuss.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

That's because we can't stop laughing long enough to say anything.

Tears aren't exclusively produced by extensive laughing, you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is off topic here. If you want to discuss the Omphalos hypothesis I suggest you open an other thread. (Maybe in General Appologetics)

Ya --- that's twice you've told me that. Steen is the one that brought up the stars.

And I don't totally believe this Omphalos Hypothesis, either. Hypotheses make me ill.

Do you have anything to say about the scientific data refuting a recent global flood?

Ya --- if it disagrees with the 1611 KJV --- it's wrong.

 

[Baggins]

That's because we can't stop laughing long enough to say anything.

You've obviously stopped laughing now.

Anything to bring to the table on this discussion point?

No?

Didn't think so

 

[AV1611VET]

Tears aren't exclusively produced by extensive laughing, you know.

That's true --- but crying doesn't have you rolling on the floor, either.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Ya --- if it disagrees with the 1611 KJV --- it's wrong.

Is there an appropriate answer to this?

That's true --- but crying doesn't have you rolling on the floor, either.

Willful ignorance does, apparently.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine --- I'll take my expertise elsewhere.

 

[Baggins]

Ya --- if it disagrees with the 1611 KJV --- it's wrong.

As I said nothing to bring to the discussion at hand

 

[Baggins]

That's true --- but crying doesn't have you rolling on the floor, either.

It does when you have to read posts as woeful as yours

ROFC