Noah and the Flood. Fact or Fantasy?

[sulphur]

The one which has the best geology faculaty in oz and has the highest overseas post graduate intake in australia

 

[sulphur]

Return with your information please

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by euphoric
Can be translated as "sphere?"  Seems a bit shaky given the rest of the verse: 

Actually, the word is used three times in the Bible, it is translated: circle, compass & circuit. If you look at the origional language it means to make a circuit. Like a guard would go around the outside boarder to circle around or make a circuit around. In modern language it would man orbit. Compass means to encompass, to go around the outside boarder of something.

A boarder or boundry is something you see often in the Bible. The ocean is given a boundry that it can not cross, and it can not go any further.

 

[Micaiah]

Okay, I can see where you are coming from now.

You put those who are accepting of science and anti-evolutionists in the same camp. What happens when science contradicts the theories proposed by evolution.

 

[sulphur]

If you can't attack the facts then attack the person

 

[sulphur]

I am totally open minded

 

[Micaiah]

Hang on, I'm having a discussion on the internet not playing a game of cluedo.

What do you know about the the Green River Formation of Wyoming, USA.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Okay, I can see where you are coming from now.

You put those who are accepting of science and anti-evolutionists in the same camp. What happens when science contradicts the theories proposed by evolution.

Should that ever happen, then the theory of evolution will be amended to fit the evidence, or discarded - as required by the evidence. Contrary to the antievolutionist polemics, this has not happened in any significant way.

 

[sulphur]

you still have not answered my request.

 

[Micaiah]

Sulphur, about this request, you need to make it more clear. As I said this is not a game of cluedo. A little more time spent on posts would help. Since I don't wish to play cluedo, you will understand if some of your questions remain unanswered.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Notto, thanks for your post. It was interesting and informative. I guess the underlying assumption with many of these things is that the formation grows at the same rate. I take it they extrapolate from a rate based on current data.

Nope, the assmption is that these formations were formed by the same processes we see today (which can cause some of them to form rapidly). Until evidence is given that would lead us to a reason to not assume this is the case, that is all we can do.

These processes include
a) Flooding
b) Glacier Movement
c) Sand Storms/Wind
d) Fires
e) Volcanoes
f) Earthquakes

Each of these processes leaves a distinct mark which we can see in the ground beneath our feet.

When objects are preserved such as bones, nests, tracks, we can also learn about the environment in which they were preserved. Much of what we see could not have been formed by a flood.

Again, this is why mainstream geology does not accept the flood theory. It was falsified by overwelming evidence and observation of what is actually in the ground.

There may be things that can be described by flooding and often Creationists focus on these. The problem is, when discussing a theory, you must also look at the evidence that can falsify the theory and explain it. YEC theories do a poor job of this.

 

[Micaiah]

Quote:
Nope, the assmption is that these formations were formed by the same processes we see today (which can cause some of them to form rapidly).

I think we are making the same statement.

On another note, can you describe how a fossil is formed.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Quote:
Nope, the assmption is that these formations were formed by the same processes we see today (which can cause some of them to form rapidly).

I think we are making the same statement.

On another note, can you describe how a fossil is formed.

How do fossils form?

 

[sulphur]

You know all about me .I know nothing about you except that you have been used by johnR7 which has dented your credibility immediatelySo you wont get a straight answer out of me until you prove you are not a clone

 

[Micaiah]

Sulphur,
My past post seems to have been lost. Were they deliberately deleted. I don't know how that happened. I've observed this happen on several ocasions with my and other posts.

For the record, I find you questions and responses deliberately cryptic. So you are aware, some of your questions will remain unanswered. If you wish to continue a discussion, then you should make yourself more clear.

 

[sulphur]

Not until you can prove you that you really want answers and not just what you want tohear. WHAT is a four letter word for intercourse

 

[Micaiah]

Notto,
I looked up several of the links on the formation of fossils. They were not that clear, but several say one way is for animals and plants to be trapped in mud.

I understand that many fossils appear to have been formed quickly. In some cases, there are fossils of an animals giving birth to their young. They must have been rapidly covered in mud. That would be expected if there was a world wide flood.

 

[Micaiah]

Sulphur,

Lets let this one slide and start again in a while.

 

[sulphur]

There you go again using help to prove your point Cant you think for your self

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Notto,
I looked up several of the links on the formation of fossils. They were not that clear, but several say one way is for animals and plants to be trapped in mud.

I understand that many fossils appear to have been formed quickly. In some cases, there are fossils of an animals giving birth to their young. They must have been rapidly covered in mud. That would be expected if there was a world wide flood.

It would also be expected if they were caused by local flooding or simply mud holes.

Of course, if they were due to a flood, you would have to show how they were all formed at relatively the same time, by the same process (large flooding and sedimentation).

Again, this is the wrong way to look at supporting a theory. Sure, there are many fossils that could have formed quickly. What you need to do is explain the ones that could not, or that were not formed by water (such as egg nests, sand dune covered tracks and animals, varves, etc). You need to explain the evidence that is used to falsify the world wide flood.

For instance, you give an example of a fossil that is shown giving birth. How is this explained by the world wide flood. If the flood covered this fossil, can we assume that anything below it was pre-flood and if I find fossils or formations below this mother (which I'm assuming is in a nest or still in position) can I assume that these were NOT layed down by the flood?