Scientific proof of flood.

[Edx]

Why can they not be supernatural events and science at the same time? It can be called science if it can be studied via physical evidence. That is certainly true of the big bang.

I disgaree the supernatural is like a a miracle, and a miracle by definition is something that goes against the laws of the universe. And how can the Big Bang and abiogenesis be supernatural events? Someone could only say that if they dont understand it.

Ed

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, I've seen that list quite a few different places. That's the small version. The large one gets very abstract, Hovind has used bits and pieces from it when it suits him, for example, the "Jesus holds atoms together" bit that we see in Big Daddy.
You have to ignore the fact that some of them require more interpretation than even the strangest version of genesis I have heard.

As I mentioned, most of it reads different enough, I would start off with the assumption that it's her words using Hovind (among others) as a study source.

Yes, she says "report" there rather than "reserch" [sic]

However, the report was certainly researched. I am sure she did not come up with that list of biblical science statements on her own as few people would read those meanings into them without guidance.

 

[JohnR7]

I disgaree the supernatural is like a a miracle, and a miracle by definition is something that goes against the laws of the universe.

Actually a miracle is just the opposite of that. A miracle restores things back to the way God intended for them to be. That is one reason why it is so hard to prove a miracle, because once everything is restored it is difficult to show that there was ever a problem in the first place.

 

[Valkhorn]

Actually a miracle is just the opposite of that. A miracle restores things back to the way God intended for them to be. That is one reason why it is so hard to prove a miracle, because once everything is restored it is difficult to show that there was ever a problem in the first place.

There's the crux. How do you know the mind of god to begin with? Many people have claimed they knew the mind of god and committed horrible crimes. Yet, how could you prove them wrong when your god did horrible things too in the old testament?

Basically you'd rather everything be based on what you believe is the mind of god - regardless of whether or not your opinion (and that's all it is) differs from another person.

 

[HRE]

Earth is a sphere suspended in space. Isa 40:22, Job 26:7

This is what prompts me to think that your biblical research isn't original.

If it was, I imagine you would have gone on in Job, to a later chapter where God berates Job for telling him how he did it. God says to Job: "Were you there on I set the earth on its foundations..."

Basically God tells Job to stop reflecting those silly developing views of the Greeks and to have faith that God stuck the Earth firmly (and flatly) in place -- it is not some celestial sphere hanging on nothing.

 

[Edx]

Actually a miracle is just the opposite of that. A miracle restores things back to the way God intended for them to be. That is one reason why it is so hard to prove a miracle, because once everything is restored it is difficult to show that there was ever a problem in the first place.

I do get weary dealing with the same illogic.

A miracle by the very definition, is something supernatural. There is no way anyone can walk on water. There is no way waters chemical properties can spontaneously change into wine. There is no way a piece of wood can turn into snake. There is no way snakes and donkeys can talk. There is no way way you can heal someone by a touch, not counting the effects of the placebo. You cannot feed 5 thousand people with a few bits of bread and fish. You cannot calm a storm by commanding it, save a freak coinsidence.

These events arent just unlikely or highly improbable, they are naturaly impossible. For any of this to happen it would mean the laws of the universe would need to be bent. The super-natural.

Ed

 

[corvus_corax]

Actually a miracle is just the opposite of that. A miracle restores things back to the way God intended for them to be. That is one reason why it is so hard to prove a miracle, because once everything is restored it is difficult to show that there was ever a problem in the first place.

So, the parting of the Red Sea means that the Red Sea should be parted?

 

[LittleNipper]

This is what prompts me to think that your biblical research isn't original.

If it was, I imagine you would have gone on in Job, to a later chapter where God berates Job for telling him how he did it. God says to Job: "Were you there on I set the earth on its foundations..."

Basically God tells Job to stop reflecting those silly developing views of the Greeks and to have faith that God stuck the Earth firmly (and flatly) in place -- it is not some celestial sphere hanging on nothing.

I see your slight and it is noted. GOD is telling Job no such thing. GOD is saying, "I was there when the earth was formed. I marked off its measurments. I hung the earth on nothing and marked its beginnings" (that is what a corner stone does...

You clearly take issue with GOD's Word. Perhaps you might ask GOD to explain it to you since HE established it HIMSELF...

 

[caravelair]

I hung the earth on nothing and marked its beginnings

doesn't it say the earth is set on a foundation?

You clearly take issue with GOD's Word. Perhaps you might ask GOD to explain it to you since HE established it HIMSELF...

unless the bible is not god's word. keep in mind, not everyone believes that.

 

[paulrob]

The problem I can see with this is that the creatinist flood model typically claims the same flood that caused the sediment that later became the SOLID ROCK is what caused the erosion.

When did the SOLID ROCK that these formations are carved out of form?

You are a bit shy on just what creationists believe. And while not a monolithic group, the following should give you something to think about.

First the flood waters lasted a long time - I wouldn't want to guess - but perhaps several hundred years or more.

Second the flood waters were full of sand that is not normally associated with wave action today, dramatically increasing the erosion.

Thirdly, the limestone that was laid down in the flood was still quite soft while the flood waters were receding, making erosion much easier - like wet cement.

It's easy to create a strawman and then criticise it. Learn about flood geology and then see if there are any holes in it.

Henry Morris was a professional engineer trained in the action of water and a creationist - I'm sure he's written on the subject.

 

[paulrob]

I don't understand how you think all this proves the Flood. You're arguing that the Grand Canyon must have been caused by water erosion -- but we know that. No reputable scientist argues that something other than water erosion was the primary force that shaped the Grand Canyon. But the water that did this was the Colorado River, not a global flood.

Actually, you are likely mistaken here. Creationists I think, do not claim it was the flood that created the Grand Canyon. They think, at least I do, that the flood laid down the layers we see in the canyon. as the water receeded, a lake was formed called appropriately enough, Grand Lake, that covered much of the western US. When it's wall was breached, the water flow eroded the soft rock into what we now see as the Grand canyon. There are lots of illustrations one could use to demonstrate this.

But there are problems the evolutionist haven't an answer for:

If it was a little river over a long period of time, where is the delta that would form from the eroded rock?

Why are all the dino foot prints, and there are lots, all going uphill, and none going down?

Why are the canyons draining into the Colorado River valley often popinting in the wrong direction if they're just runoff canyons? barbed shaped canyons are formed when large bodies of water suddenly drop their levels, supporting the theory of a huge lake dropping rapidly.

There's more, but that's enough for now . .

 

[paulrob]

I can't see how only one year under water could have done that anyway.

So who said anything about one year?

 

[paulrob]

I want to know how it is that only that small slice of Arizona got eroded away. One would think that a global flood would have affected much more.

See my previous post. You can acually make a small model of this in sand, to test the theory. Much of America is under hundreds of feet of sandstone. Is there an evolutionary explanation as to why its so thick, to expansive, and shows little to no erosion between layers?

I don't think so.

 

[notto]

Why are all the dino foot prints, and there are lots, all going uphill, and none going down?

Can you provide a reference for this claim? Where are there 'lots' of dinosaur tracks, all going uphill, with none going down?

 

[paulrob]

I'm an old cosmos, young Earther.
I place the cosmos, Earth, Sun and Moon in Gen: 1:1
Only the recreation of the Earths surface happens in the creation week.
So I have lots of time for rock building before the first day.

Duane

Sounds like an old Derick Prince fan. Used to teach that theory. "Without form and Void" - Toho and Boho, and the earth "became" without form and void . . .

 

[paulrob]

Not UNDER the water

I'm not a hydrologist, but scouring on the floor of a river or ocean is a big problem for bridge builders, etc., literally removing the material the abutments sit on. Just think of standing on a beach in the water - it will gradually take the samd out from under your feet. More water, more scouring.

So I think you're wrong on this. I'll decline gracefully if you're right

 

[paulrob]

Wasn't the rocks under water away from wave action for most of that year?

Actually, many years. In many places, its still going on, and thats maybe 8000 years ago.

Where did the water go anyway being the world was covered and all?

Do you have any idea how much water there is on the earth? If you read the Biblical account, you'll find that the earth was very smooth before the flood, that the lakes and rivers were very shallow by todays standards. If you read again in the Bible, as a result of the flood, mountains were formed (pushed up), and sea valleys opened. No problem at all about where the water went. Science proves without a doubt that the highest peaks in the world all have been underwater - worldwide. And Biblically, the mantle of the earth was shaken, causing volcanos, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. All these cause erosion, "hide" water, and result in the formations we see today.

Why do you still believe this nonsense in the 21st century when it's been shown that it would have been impossible to flood the Earth (not enough water) and then leave NO evidence that it happened?

BECAUSE IT'S TRUE? it has not been proven that there is not enough water, in fact there is one school of thought that believes that the comets were formed at the time of the flood, especially since there is no evolutionary explanation for them. That was surplus water, over and above what was required for the flood.

And evidence? it's really hard for evolutionists to explain away many of the
hydrological features of the earth (I've just mentioned a couple). But there are no hydrological features I can think of that contradict the Biblical account.

(What you presented has been debunked a long time ago and would have had to have happened all over the world to be relevant anyway).

You'd have a hard time proving that statement. Yes it covered the whole world, No it hasn't been debunked, as ther evidence only increases with each discovery about our oceans.

Do your homework, then criticise.

 

[paulrob]

If the entire earth was covered in water then there wasn't a water line where this could occur.

But you forget the water receeded

 

[paulrob]

So this erosion took place over the course of... days?

Maybe 8000 years?

 

[paulrob]

Good point

From the Hebrew YOM the period from one sunset to another.

Any more questions?