Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did anyone do an experiment on this? Are you certain?the biggest problem with all of the attempts to make the flood happen in a year, is it would kill everyone on the ark an all the fish. All that energy would build up and would super heat the water and the air.
Ever read the story of Daniel's three friends in the burning, fiery furnace; and how God handled the heat problem?
Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.
Here's a good question for you:
Do you think it's plausible that Jesus was on the Ark with them?
Did anyone do an experiment on this? Are you certain?
OK, do it.
It is highly likely that the interpretation I accept, is different to his, yes. Why?I could be wrong, but I feel that I know for certain that your interpretation of the geology of the earth and the AV's will be different.
I quite understand what you are saying.the same math you think proves the mountains could be faster proves that it would. it's basic physics, the amount of heat generated from moving that much dirt would fry the earths seas. you know how much heat an earthquake produces? Multply that by millions or what ever it would be.
I believe she meant faith in God. However, you'd have to ask her, to be sure.Faith in what? Faith in Christ? Or faith in the literal inerrancy of Scripture?
as it was poitned out many times in the past, the change in how fast a mountain can grow by scientists is like saying a football field is a few steps shorter. what your proposing is akin to say new york is only a few dozen miles from LA, not even remoly on the same scale or related.I quite understand what you are saying.
However, let me ask... if a growth spurt rate is 2,051 feet in 1 million years (which is an estimation rounded to a million, rather than a precise figure, why is it impossible for a growth spurt to be greater, in less time?
I believe she meant faith in God. However, you'd have to ask her, to be sure.Faith in what? Faith in Christ? Or faith in the literal inerrancy of Scripture?
Those scientists that do? Well, they are materialists, or naturalist, or whatever name they take.What goes through your mind, when you see scientists deny the virgin birth on the grounds that Jesus was a male, and it takes a male father to supply the y-chromosome?
Many are truly sincere.Or what goes through your mind when you see the Flood denied, because there should be "watermarks" all over the earth of this event?
Exactly.Or what goes through your mind when you hear the Jews referred to as "ignorant, goat herding, desert nomads"?
Or what goes through your mind when you hear we are "mutant, copy errors" made in the image and likeness of God?
Please don't.I could go on and on and on ...
Because your making a big deal if scientist have different interpretations.It is highly likely that the interpretation I accept, is different to his, yes. Why?
Nah.as it was poitned out many times in the past, the change in how fast a mountain can grow by scientists is like saying a football field is a few steps shorter. what your proposing is akin to say new york is only a few dozen miles from LA, not even remoly on the same scale or related.
Also phsyics says that, you know the thing that isn't possible to get wrong, as it's based on math.
I was just explaining why what you were saying was not correct, in that the earth and rocks do not speak, but the interpretation do, and oftentimes are not correct. That's all. Sorry if that was wrong for me to do.Because your making a big deal if scientist have different interpretations.
Whatever they see it as, is fine by me.Sounds good to me.
One more question, please.
Should scientists see Israel as "the promised land"?
Or should scientists view Israel as just a geopolitical entity that was given to them by the British?
The subject as I understood it is that there is zero geological evidence of a Global Noah type of flood. So I was expecting something from you about the geology of that flood. So far you have come presented nothing regarding it.The Kalaupapa Peninsula remains one of the most remote locations in Hawaii due to unique volcanic and geologic activity over millions of years. Specifically, Molokai's famous sea cliffs, which reach up to three thousand feet above sea level and are among the tallest in the world, are most responsible for restricting access. Geologists thought that these cliffs were carved by wind and water erosion, but it is now believed that they formed after a third of the northern portion of the island collapsed into the sea.
The Ames Crater is covered by about 9,000 feet (2,700 m) of sediment, so it is not visible from the surface. It was discovered only in 1991. Prior to its discovery, many geologists believed that impact craters were unlikely to contain petroleum. Wells had been drilled near the crater site since the 1960s, but none had been drilled within the crater. However, Continental Resources drilled deep into the crater. The well struck oil at a 10,000 feet (3,000 m) depth that initially produced about 200 barrels per day (32 m3/d).
The crater penetrated the Arbuckle Dolomite which resulted in vast amounts of oil and gas becoming accessible in the fractured rock. There were even rumors that the impact might have created diamonds. But no evidence of that was found. Iridium was also not found although it is used to identify astroblemes elsewhere.
The Grand Coulee is an ancient river bed on the Columbia Plateau created during the Pliocene Epoch (Calabrian) by retreating glaciers and floods. Originally, geologists believed a glacier that diverted the Columbia River formed the Grand Coulee, but it was revealed in the mid-late 20th century that massive floods from Lake Missoula carved most of the gorge.
Evidence of the details of plate motions and other tectonic activity in the Precambrian is difficult to interpret. It is generally believed that small proto-continents existed before 4280 Ma, and that most of the Earth's landmasses collected into a single supercontinent around 1130 Ma. The supercontinent, known as Rodinia, broke up around 750 Ma. A number of glacial periods have been identified going as far back as the Huronian epoch, roughly 2400–2100 Ma. One of the best studied is the Sturtian-Varangian glaciation, around 850–635 Ma, which may have brought glacial conditions all the way to the equator, resulting in a "Snowball Earth".[citation needed]
The atmosphere of the early Earth is not well understood. Most geologists believe it was composed primarily of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other relatively inert gases, and was lacking in free oxygen. There is, however, evidence that an oxygen-rich atmosphere existed since the early Archean.
At present, it is still believed that molecular oxygen was not a significant fraction of Earth's atmosphere until after photosynthetic life forms evolved and began to produce it in large quantities as a byproduct of their metabolism. This radical shift from a chemically inert to an oxidizing atmosphere caused an ecological crisis, sometimes called the oxygen catastrophe. At first, oxygen would have quickly combined with other elements in Earth's crust, primarily iron, removing it from the atmosphere. After the supply of oxidizable surfaces ran out, oxygen would have begun to accumulate in the atmosphere, and the modern high-oxygen atmosphere would have developed. Evidence for this lies in older rocks that contain massive banded iron formations that were laid down as iron oxides.
According to Caddo legend, the lake was formed by the 1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes. There may be some truth to the legend, as Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee has been documented as formed by that earthquake.
But most geologists believe that the lake was formed earlier, either gradually or catastrophically, by the "Great Raft", a 100 miles (161 km) log jam on the Red River in Louisiana. This likely caused flooding of the existing low-lying basin. According to a 1913-1914 survey that dated timber there, the lake formed about 1770 to 1780.
The magnetic north and south poles reverse through time, and, especially important in paleotectonic studies, the relative position of the magnetic north pole varies through time. Initially, during the first half of the twentieth century, the latter phenomenon was explained by introducing what was called "polar wander" (see apparent polar wander) (i.e., it was assumed that the north pole location had been shifting through time). An alternative explanation, though, was that the continents had moved (shifted and rotated) relative to the north pole, and each continent, in fact, shows its own "polar wander path". During the late 1950s, it was successfully shown on two occasions that these data could show the validity of continental drift: by Keith Runcorn in a paper in 1956, and by Warren Carey in a symposium held in March 1956.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, geologists assumed that Earth's major features were fixed, and that most geologic features such as basin development and mountain ranges could be explained by vertical crustal movement, described in what is called the geosynclinal theory. Generally, this was placed in the context of a contracting planet Earth due to heat loss in the course of a relatively short geological time.
It was observed as early as 1596 that the opposite coasts of the Atlantic Ocean—or, more precisely, the edges of the continental shelves—have similar shapes and seem to have once fitted together.
Since that time many theories were proposed to explain this apparent complementarity, but the assumption of a solid Earth made these various proposals difficult to accept.
I suppose that should be enough.
That's not the subject, but may I ask, where you saw it was the subject?The subject as I understood it is that there is zero geological evidence of a Global Noah type of flood. So I was expecting something from you about the geology of that flood. So far you have come presented nothing regarding it.
if god is going to do everything with a miracle why bother with the ark and drowning everyone? It's kinda silly to say, "Oh god protected everyone from the heat, but required a natural boat to survive."
This is one of the better foot in mouth jobs I have come across in a while.You did? Would you be able to say which question you answered?
sjastro said:
Scientists are not making assumptions but using evidence based on GPS, geodetic data, thermochronology, strath terrace dating, sediment analysis, isostatic compensation and geological markers.
That is what you said, and I asked you to "Please clarify. Are you saying no assumptions are made here?"
I asked because your statement is not true.
In all those methods, or models, assumptions are made.
You notice you did not answer the question?
Once again you struggle to differentiate between evidence and assumptions.Based on the assumption that the rate is constant, slow and gradual, they do.
We have passed that stage, though. Or at least I thought we did.
No you used a false dichotomy fallacy in an attempt to justify the existence of the flood.I used it as an example.
Persons were limiting it. Are you doing that as well?
You are doing yourself no favours with this exhibition of dishonest quote mining.Your figures are at least correct.
There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans.
A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from.
Genesis 7:11 'all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.'
Water came from beneath, and water goes in the earth as well.
The factors that should be taken into consideration is the lack of evidence which supports a flood which you have avoided like the plague like no evidence of mass extinctions, no evidence of global sedimentation, no evidence of erosion caused by the flood, no evidence of global marine deposits on mountain tops, no evidence of the disruption of tree ring patterns or no evidence of disruption of volcanic ash in ice core samples.If all factors are not taken into consideration, and included, I can see how this conclusion is reached.
If you actually attempted to understand the link you provided, the assumption being made is science is based on naturalism as its origins come from Greek philosophy.There are Basic assumptions of science, and you deny this, so I think we need to clarify this first.
I checked GPS, and geodetic data, and these both use assumptions.
Not at all.That's not the subject, but may I ask, where you saw it was the subject?
I gave you what you asked for, didn't I?
It's a point worth clearing up, don't you think? The way you speak of faith in God and acceptance of literal inerrancy (in this case a literal global flood) it's as if you thought the two were interchangeable.I believe she meant faith in God. However, you'd have to ask her, to be sure.
This is a weird obsession or misunderstanding that you share with others. Science works by making the best model of some system or object or process based on the best available information and data and continuing to check those results and update the model. Modifying the conclusion to include additional or better measured data is not only part of the process.Nah.
You know as well as I do, that what scientist have said... what scientists believe... what scientists tell us... is not alway correct, and/or accurate, and we have seen many times over, how many millions of years have been cut off of previous estimations. I refered to one earlier - The Moon Is Millions of Years Younger Than We Thought, but there are many.
Not new calculations or a new age for the universe, but a new method for measuring distance finds a value of the Hubble constant. A value, that within the *presented* error bars, on the edge of consistency with the previously measured value. The paper referenced in the NBC news article does not actually give an age for the Universe. It was the first time out for a new and untested method with unknown issues.You know this, so I think you are just "playing the fiddle" here, if you get what I mean.
The universe may be billions of years younger than we thought
New calculations point to an age of 11.4 billion years rather than the generally accepted number of 13.7 billion years.
That whole study was built upon a model for the evolution of the "standard objects" that was grossly erroneous as I discussed in a different thread many months ago. Short answer, that study is junk built on a pile of garbage.New research suggest the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, according to researchers using observations from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) in Chile.
New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed
Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called "impossible early galaxy problem."
Nope, you take entirely the wrong lesson from the refinement of understanding from new data in science.I'm correct, aren't I?
A conclusion that does not change when confronted with contradictory data is not a good conclusion.Aside from the fact that I have solid reasons for believing the Bible is true, this adds emphasis to why sticking to the Bible will not lead us wrong, but science claims will.
The assumptions are built on, and the conclusions follow the same path the assumptions do.
When one is wrong, the other is also.
The Bible does not change. However, in time, the new data that is truly valid, does align with what the Bible said thousands of years ago.
The strongest evidence for the flood, is the Bible, and while there is evidence of an external kind out there, we don't need to rely on that evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?