Why would it do that? Please provide your reasoning, as I think it would do the exact opposite.
Upvote
0
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.
Why would it do that? Please provide your reasoning, as I think it would do the exact opposite.A global flood like Noah's would make the earth look a lot older than it really is. It's no surprise that a lot of people think the earth is millions of years old.
I think I follow what you are saying, did you mean 'than' instead of 'then'? My big problem here, apart from the fact Jesus showed us God speaks in metaphor, is what you consider 'reasonable'. Is plants aren't alive and animals may not really be alive either, a reasonable understanding?
No. First you would have to show heaven is simply a reconstruction of Eden, then you would have to ignore all the livestock, the birds of the heavens, and beasts of the field wandering around before God made Eve to keep things a bit tidier.
But then I would simply ask a question, which is essentially the heart of the topic and main reason why I opened this thread. What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on all the dating methods employed by science?
A global flood like Noah's would make the earth look a lot older than it really is. It's no surprise that a lot of people think the earth is millions of years old.
***Holds up mirror
A past event is not a viable source for constructing a
current experiment.
Animals ARE rational.
A global flood like Noah's would...
Just because you think it, does not make it reasonable. Seriously Juv, you are claiming plants aren't alive.Yes, they can be reasoned. That is why I spent so much thoughts on the issue that plant does not really have a fluid called blood. I suggested that plants are not alive with many reasons, not just an idea.
Just because you think it, does not make it reasonable. Seriously Juv, you are claiming plants aren't alive.
And the fact you think it is a pretty good idea is an indication of just how messed up you reasoning process is. How bizarre would a conclusion have to be before warning bells go off in your mind? I remember as a young creationist trying to understand scripture for myself thinking what I really need to do is base my whole world view on scripture. Which was great until I came to those passages that if you take them literally describe a flat earth. Oops. That doesn't work, so I filed it away under 'questions that need answers'. I think I understand now, but the point is, we need to search the scriptures and try to find understanding, but that should not involve losing touch with reality. God is the one who created reality, gave us brains to understand it.Yes, I serious do. This is one of my best understanding in recent years. I have several reasons (scientific and theological, they have all been polished in CF forums). And I think everyone of them is pretty good.
Um excuse me, but you are better off denying flat out the flood happened whatsoever than argue it was local, because this is clearly a giant extortion of the text.
But we know the flood could not have been anything but literal, or you can explain to me how God managed to exterminate all life on earth "symbolically".
All you want to do is point fingers and pass the bucket? Own up
Sky wrote:A past event is not a viable source for constructing a
current experiment.
Sure it is. All you need to do is be able to make a prediction, such as "if OJ committed the murder, I predict that this blood sample will match his DNA.". The scientific method works perfectly well to study history.
As many people have pointed out many times, scientific facts are based on evidence, not on whether or not someone observed them happening. So we don't have to throw out all the evidence in the OJ trial, the entire field of forensics, anthropology, and so on.
Papias
No. The facts are the actual evidence. Conclusions may beScientific facts are based on evidence....
The facts are the actual evidence. Conclusions may be
based on the evidence IF the evidence is shown to have been
handled in such a perfect way that it is still in it's original condition.
That way it can be retested by a second party for scientific verification.
And the fact you think it is a pretty good idea is an indication of just how messed up you reasoning process is. How bizarre would a conclusion have to be before warning bells go off in your mind? I remember as a young creationist trying to understand scripture for myself thinking what I really need to do is base my whole world view on scripture. Which was great until I came to those passages that if you take them literally describe a flat earth. Oops. That doesn't work, so I filed it away under 'questions that need answers'. I think I understand now, but the point is, we need to search the scriptures and try to find understanding, but that should not involve losing touch with reality. God is the one who created reality, gave us brains to understand it.
SW wrote:
It's good that we agree that science can be used to understand the past. The evidence for evolution has indeed been tested over and over in many cases by other scientists, including finding the same conclusions by many different ways of testing, in different fields.
Regardless of the outcome of the OJ trial, we seem to agree that science can be used to test that event in the past as well.
Papias
Only those parts that are a factor in current processes such as variations in the species.
Nor is the increase of complexity and information over time supported in any way.
SW wrote:
Only those parts that are a factor in current processes such as variations in the species.If your going to challenge my comments: Quote me, then challenge what I've said.Why would you say that the scientific investigation of some past events (like Nicole's murder) is valid, while the scientific investigation of other past events (like evolution) is not? What difference is there?
Nor is the increase of complexity and information over time supported in any way.
I don't care what it's like in your mind. Mutations are the destroyer of useful information. If you have a favorite published example of increases in complexity or increase in useful information over time, then present it. The idea is a part of modern culture, despite any scientific support for it.Sure it is. In fact, we even have current observations on that, where mutations have time and again added complexity and information, and have even added whole new genes. Claiming that we've never directly observed that is like claiming ...<snip>
And the fact you think it is a pretty good idea is an indication of just how messed up you reasoning process is. How bizarre would a conclusion have to be before warning bells go off in your mind? I remember as a young creationist trying to understand scripture for myself thinking what I really need to do is base my whole world view on scripture. Which was great until I came to those passages that if you take them literally describe a flat earth. Oops. That doesn't work, so I filed it away under 'questions that need answers'. I think I understand now, but the point is, we need to search the scriptures and try to find understanding, but that should not involve losing touch with reality. God is the one who created reality, gave us brains to understand it.
I don't care what it's like in your mind. Mutations are the destroyer of useful information. If you have a favorite published example of increases in complexity or increase in useful information over time, then present it. The idea is a part of modern culture, despite any scientific support for it.
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?