Scientific proof of flood.

[mmadison777]

If many people here believe in evolution, as you say, I must be in the wrong place. The Bible clearly states in Genesis that this is not so. Since you are a veteran member, Gluadys, I suppose that you would know more than I do about how people think in this forum. This was a great place to be for the first few days, but I clearly see that this is not for me. I read too many false teachings. Not just this one, but in many threads. The Spirit is leading me out. bye. Good luck.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

If many people here believe in evolution, as you say, I must be in the wrong place. The Bible clearly states in Genesis that this is not so. Since you are a veteran member, Gluadys, I suppose that you would know more than I do about how people think in this forum. This was a great place to be for the first few days, but I clearly see that this is not for me. I read too many false teachings. Not just this one, but in many threads. The Spirit is leading me out. bye. Good luck.

It may surprise you to know that the vast majority of the world's christians accept evolutionary theory. They realise that the Bible's account of creation is not to be taken literally, any more than is the Bible's talk of a flat earth, of Jesus being a door, and so forth. Creationism is very much a minority view, almost entirely confined to the US, predominantly in the south. Most of the world's Christians view it as a rather 'whacko' belief, about on a par with believing in a flat earth.

 

[corvus_corax]

This is not a lie.
Jenny

Yes it is.
Evolution has contributed MUCH to not only science but also to practical life.
Evolutionary theory has produced predictable outcomes that have contributed to many useful outcomes.

Without GOD there are not any numbers and without GOD there are no leaves, no trees, no language so, nothing to talk about, and without GOD there are no people, no world, no planet or planets, Without GOD there is nothing.

I appreciate your sentiment. However, God didnt invent numbers. Humans did. Additionally, there is no evidence that God produced any of the other things you mention. Leaves are produced through natural phenomena, as are trees.

Quite simply, there is no evidence that God produced anything. I realize you have faith in the bible, and I appreciate such faith (I used to subscribe to such faith years ago), but there is no empirical testable evidence or data that points to God doing anything.

Please note- Im not trying to trounce on your faith. Im merely pointing out what the evidence says (or in this case, doesnt say).

A lot so many I could not list them all here are some the Bible, Kent Hovinds stuff and a lot of others from the creationists point of view.

You must realize that the Bible, Kent Hovind and (possibly) the "lot of others" dont actually explain the evolutionary theory. The bible is not a science book and Hovind has been caught (time and again) in lies and deceptioin.

Then a lot from the evolutionists view too. I have loved archeology since I can remember so I would get all the books I could at the library. Evolution is a lie.

You keep stating that evolution is false. I appreciate faith. However, you continue to state this as if it were verifiable testable fact.
It's not. Evolution is the best model we have (to date) that explains the evidence at hand.

I love to read! Have you ever read the bible?
I would like to tell you. What Thread?

I used to eat, breathe, drink, live, walk and sleep the Bible.
Yes, Ive read it. Ive studied it.
Why not tell us here on this thread?
Normally I would suggest another thread, but this one keeps drifting so much back and forth that it's as good as any.

Okay maybe its not a lie but it certanly IS false.
Okay, okay i'll go look at my books and come post again.

Again, I ask you to demonstrate that it is false.
And thanks for doing your research. I look forward to your posts (no sarcasm, I mean it).

 

[AirPo]

GOD loves man more then the rest of HIS creation.

Then why didn't he protect man from Satan?

 

[duordi]

Notice Antarctica is a continent at he following site.



http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/v/218/t7con.html

Now notice that North America is within the ice cap which would cause a Glacier Fossil record in the continent of North America which is considered a continent at the following site.



http://www.athropolis.com/links/maps.htm

I did not say plate tectonics did not occur, this has been scientifically proven.

I said the movements of the continents can not explain the fossil record because somewhere along the equator you would find glacier strata.

If the plate submerged destroying the evidence then why didn’t the plate with tropical fossils submerge?

Science is science. You can’t say I like this, so I will keep it, but that I will ignore.

The conclusion must be that the Earth had tropical climates everywhere.

This does not prove or disprove evolution so I am at a loss to understand why you are squirming so much.

The warm climate Earth and even a thicker atmosphere is held by many evolutionist for purely scientific reasons.

I know you distrust me if a site is not given so here you go.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/9846/c1-a1.html



As is commonly my practice no YEC sites have been posted.

The site also contains the statement....

((However, going back even further in time, fossil records have been found of insects - dragonflies - the size of ccats! Insects are even more dependent on atmospheric pressure and density to breathe and fly, and what size are they today?

So, all in all I propose that the atmospheric height, volume, density and pressure may once have been two or three times the amount of today, possibly varying through time due to volcanic activity, but generally waning through the ages, perhaps being blown into space by the solar wind and / or heavy meteorite impacts. Animals who had grown too large to adapt simply slowly suffocated; smaller animals with higher metabolism rates survived. . . if this is true, it may still be going on, and the consequences are dire. Some day our heads will be sticking out into space.))

This individual has come to the conclusion that the atmosphere in the past was 2 to 3 times denser then today.

This conclusion has come from the evolutionary viewpoint so biased can not be given as an argument on you part.

This may be hard for you to accept but this opinion has been determined based purely on scientific evidence.

I have a past Earth with a "heavy" atmosphere and tropical temperatures at the poles and at the equator.

Can we agree on this regardless of our origin preference?

Duane

 

[Tomk80]

Notice Antarctica is a continent at he following site.



http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/v/218/t7con.html

Now notice that North America is within the ice cap which would cause a Glacier Fossil record in the continent of North America which is considered a continent at the following site.



http://www.athropolis.com/links/maps.htm

I know those are continents. What I said, and what you did not respond to, is that the north pole is not a continent.

I did not say plate tectonics did not occur, this has been scientifically proven.

I said the movements of the continents can not explain the fossil record because somewhere along the equator you would find glacier strata.

Look at the picture of Pangea here. You'll see that the continents at the equator at this point in time were also at the equator in past times. South America and Afrika have moved to the side, but not in the direction of the poles. On the other hand, North America and Eurazia have been moving in the direction of the poles. This way, at least for the past 200 million years, Africa and South America always were around on the equator (hence no traces of polar climates), while North America, Eurazia and Antarctica have been located further toward the equator (hence tropical fauna).

If the plate submerged destroying the evidence then why didn’t the plate with tropical fossils submerge?

Why should it have to? There are all kinds of different explanations. I'm raising the questions, you solve them.

Science is science. You can’t say I like this, so I will keep it, but that I will ignore.

And this isn't what you are doing how?

The conclusion must be that the Earth had tropical climates everywhere.

Have you looked at all the pieces of the puzzle? I'm not sure, I'm no expert. But from what I know of this, global average temperature has indeed been higher in the past, just as it is becoming higher now. So this is indeed within the range of possibilities. Nobody said it wasn't.

This does not prove or disprove evolution so I am at a loss to understand why you are squirming so much.

Because you say things that aren't true. For example, the fact that all continental plates move around, does not necessarily mean that all continental plates have been all around the world. Your entire post is a gigantic ad hoc non-sequitur, that's why I'm protesting.

The warm climate Earth and even a thicker atmosphere is held by many evolutionist for purely scientific reasons.

I know you distrust me if a site is not given so here you go.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/9846/c1-a1.html



As is commonly my practice no YEC sites have been posted. The site also contains the statement....

((However, going back even further in time, fossil records have been found of insects - dragonflies - the size of ccats! Insects are even more dependent on atmospheric pressure and density to breathe and fly, and what size are they today?

So, all in all I propose that the atmospheric height, volume, density and pressure may once have been two or three times the amount of today, possibly varying through time due to volcanic activity, but generally waning through the ages, perhaps being blown into space by the solar wind and / or heavy meteorite impacts. Animals who had grown too large to adapt simply slowly suffocated; smaller animals with higher metabolism rates survived. . . if this is true, it may still be going on, and the consequences are dire. Some day our heads will be sticking out into space.))

This individual has come to the conclusion that the atmosphere in the past was 2 to 3 times denser then today.

This conclusion has come from the evolutionary viewpoint so biased can not be given as an argument on you part.

This may be hard for you to accept but this opinion has been determined based purely on scientific evidence.

I have a past Earth with a "heavy" atmosphere and tropical temperatures at the poles and at the equator.

Can we agree on this regardless of our origin preference?

Duane

Yes, and at this point I haven't ruled that out as a possibility in any of my posts. I have questioned whether it really was true, yes. But I haven't ruled it out anywhere.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I did not say the tectonic plates do not move.

This has been proven and measured.

Sorry, but that's what you imply when you say such absolutist things like: "There is evidence against the floating plate theory."

I only said the plates have not have time to slide all over the planet.

It is a time and distance question that we are debating.

There is no debate in this in the scientific community. This has been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. I can only conclude that you are unaware of research into plate tectonism.

Only when you speak for both of us.

I speak for every rational minded person when I say that the notion of an "all tropical" earth climate was a past condition.

No it was covered by a cloud cover.

You are making stuff up.

I did not say the plates did not move, only that they did not have time to float all over the planet.

You are making stuff up.

Of course the same fossils are found they had the same climate and there was no ocean between them.

So there was a supercontinent that split apart and these fossil assemblages are now split by an ocean, thereby demonstrating that the plates have moved great distances over periods of hundred of millions of years.

You have conceded defeat.

I believe the word used is theory.
as in "made up"

You demonstrate again that you neither understand scientific terminology nor the scientific method (and probably that you did not fully read my last reply, which is why I'm not wasting any more time on anything other than a laconic reply to your unsubstantiated nonsense).

Radio acitive dating is a ruler without lines.
You have to assign the lines though another means.

And it has been well demonstrated to work effectively, repeatedly. Your objections are null and void.

So why do you reject evidence that disagrees with your belief?

You have not presented any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. Again, you are merely making stuff up.

So my fossils in the pole strata is made up, but your super continent is "not an assumption".

It's not an assumption because it is substantiated by evidence. And you are also being misrepresentative with that comparison (obviously, deliberately, to avoid the fact that your claims relevant to your argument are all made up).

Well at least I understand you rules.

Duane

If you are still complaining about these "rules" (which aren't mine, but rather the standards of scientific inquiry), then no, you don't understand at all.

 

[Girl_4_God]

I believe everything the Bible says. It has never lied to me. Every prophecy has come to pass (except Revelations). If God inspired the writings to say that He sent a flood that wiped out man and animals, I believe it. I know that human nature wants to prove everything, but isnt that what the Pharisees wanted Jesus to do? God wants us to have Faith.

 

[Edx]

Your post here is funny for so many reasons.

 

[Girl_4_God]

Your post here is funny for so many reasons.

Why is it funny. I agree with what this person said?

 

[Girl_4_God]

I used to eat, breathe, drink, live, walk and sleep the Bible.
Yes, Ive read it. Ive studied it.

What happend?

Why not tell us here on this thread?

Here is some of my reserch:

Evolution vs. Creation


​

Since the publication of Charles Darwin’s book Origin of Species in 1859, there has been controversy between evolutionists and creationists. The controversy has been characterized as an argument between the bible and science, but the real argument is between science and evolution! Evolution interests everyone because of its impact on spiritual matters.

If evolution were true, the Christian concepts of sin, eternity, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and all the truth of the bible would be able to be questioned. If man is nothing more than an advanced animal, then he can be congratulated for his great effort and is to be excused when he acts like an animal; but if man is the divinely created being the bible tells us he is, then man is a creature made in the image of God and a sinner in need of divine grace.

After the days of Noah pagan cultures arose with only indistinguishable memories of God’s truth. To satisfy their need to know, men devised myths to clarify how nature operates. No one but God was there at the beginning to survey the origin of the universe and of life! Evolution is a thought that many choose to believe in because they do not want to believe the alternative. The only logical alternative to the evolution of the universe and of man by chance from the forces of nature is the creation of the universe and of man by the direct act of an invincible God. One must logically believe in either evolution or direct creation. There is no third choice.

The Greeks explanation for the origin of life is called spontaneous generation, the faith that living things can arise from nonliving things. One Greek Philosopher taught that living creatures were produced by mud.

Many medieval people looked back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle for their ideas about science. They supposed, for example that the universes revolved around the earth, and they still believe in spontaneous generation. Frogs and fish they said, formed in the sky during storms and “rained” down upon the earth. Maggots and worms, according to medieval scientists, developed from rotten meat.

All evolutionists must confess that at least the first living things sprang from nonliving substances by spontaneous generation if their conviction is correct. Evolution is not science for the reason that none of its ideas can be observed or tested through experimentation. While the Bible is not a science text when it speaks of scientific matters it speaks beyond doubt and precisely:

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

2. The water cycle keeps the land watered. Job 36:27-28; Eccles. 1:7; Amos 5:8

3. The universe is running down. Isa. 51:6; Ps. 102:26

4. Ocean currents flow through the sea. Ps. 8:8

5. Blood sustains life. Lev. 17:11

6. The universe is made of invisible things. Heb 11:3

7. The stars are incredibly distant from the earth and cannot be numbered.

Job 22:12, Gen. 15:5, 22:17, Jer. 33:22

8. The winds form a circulatory system. Eccles 1:6

9. Earth rotates on its axis. Job 38:12,14

10. Man’s body composed of the same materials as the earth. Gen. 2:7, 3:19,

Ps. 103:14

 

[Edx]

Why is it funny. I agree with what this person said?

Well I couldnt understand what was funnier, that you agreed with madison, or the irony of it being posted under Mechanical Bliss' reply.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Evolution vs. Creation

3 people have already replied in the other thread, why are you posting it here as well? Its not like its groundbreaking.

Ed

 

[Arikay]

Probably because someone asked her too, although I generally like to keep things split to make it easier to deal with the fast moving forum.

 

[gluadys]

Here is some of my reserch:

This is an excellent example of why you should not try to learn about evolution from creationists. There is so much wrong with that article I scarcely know where to start.

By the way, I don't see where that article came from. If it is online, could you please post the url? If it is not on-line, could you please tell us what book or magazine it came from?

Evolution vs. Creation


[/center]
Since the publication of Charles Darwin’s book Origin of Species in 1859, there has been controversy between evolutionists and creationists. The controversy has been characterized as an argument between the bible and science, but the real argument is between science and evolution! Evolution interests everyone because of its impact on spiritual matters.

He goes wrong right here in the first paragraph. Evolution is scientific. Why else do you think the vast majority of biologists consider it to be the most important theory in biology?

Second, properly understood, evolution ought to have no impact on spiritual matters as it does not discuss them at all. That is why people of very different spiritual views such as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists can all agree on evolution---because it does not impact on spiritual matters.

If evolution were true, the Christian concepts of sin, eternity, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and all the truth of the bible would be able to be questioned.

False

If man is nothing more than an advanced animal, then he can be congratulated for his great effort and is to be excused when he acts like an animal;

False

but if man is the divinely created being the bible tells us he is, then man is a creature made in the image of God and a sinner in need of divine grace.

This is still true if evolution is true.

Evolution is a thought that many choose to believe in because they do not want to believe the alternative.

False. People accept the truth of evolution based on the evidence which support it. There is no other acceptable reason to agree with evolution.

The only logical alternative to the evolution of the universe and of man by chance from the forces of nature is the creation of the universe and of man by the direct act of an invincible God. One must logically believe in either evolution or direct creation. There is no third choice.

False. There are many third choices.

The Greeks explanation for the origin of life is called spontaneous generation, the faith that living things can arise from nonliving things. One Greek Philosopher taught that living creatures were produced by mud.

Something Christians also believed until Pasteur proved otherwise.

All evolutionists must confess that at least the first living things sprang from nonliving substances by spontaneous generation if their conviction is correct.

Incorrect. The processes of abiogenesis are nothing like the concept of spontaneous generation.

Furthermore, abiogenesis (life from non-life) is a different concept than evolution. Even if it did take a super-natural miracle to create the first life-form, it would still be a fact that the first species evolved and all subsequent species also evolved. Evolution is a process that occurs in populations that are already alive. It does not apply to the first formation of life.

Evolution is not science for the reason that none of its ideas can be observed or tested through experimentation.

False. Evolutionary processes can be observed, have been observed, can be tested and have been tested.

While the Bible is not a science text when it speaks of scientific matters it speaks beyond doubt and precisely:

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

Neither verse supports the earth being a sphere. Isa 40:22 the earth is described as a circle (not a sphere) over which the heavens were spread out like a tent curtain. Tents are spread out over a flat area, not a sphere. The same basic image is used in Job and just a few verses later it speaks of God drawing "a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness" . The circle was drawn to show where the limits of the waters that surrounded the earth would be.

The proper interpretation of texts like these depends on knowing the scientific views of the writers at the time it was written. Attributing scientific discoveries from millennia later to such verses is a very bad way to read the bible.

I assume that you are studying English in high school. You might like to check out the meaning of "anachronism". This kind of interpretation is a sort of anachronism.

2. The water cycle keeps the land watered. Job 36:27-28; Eccles. 1:7; Amos 5:8

No problem here. While the ancients would not have expressed themselves in scientific terms, they were aware of evaporation and rain and connected them.

3. The universe is running down. Isa. 51:6; Ps. 102:26

Neither verse speaks of the universe running down. Isaiah is speaking of God's judgment which is contrasted with God's salvation. The Psalmist is simply referring to the impermanence of creation as contrasted to the eternal existance of God.

4. Ocean currents flow through the sea. Ps. 8:8

The phrase "paths of the sea" is too vague to connect decisively with currents. It could just as well refer to migration paths or navigational routes, for example.

5. Blood sustains life. Lev. 17:11

Yes, pretty obvious long before blood circulation was discovered.

6. The universe is made of invisible things. Heb 11:3

That is rather over-reaching it. The writer is not talking about atoms, but about the invisible realm of the spirit out of which the physical world emerges.

7. The stars are incredibly distant from the earth and cannot be numbered.
Job 22:12, Gen. 15:5, 22:17, Jer. 33:22

Beyond numbering yes. Incredibly distant, no. Stars were believed to be fixed in the firmament and no farther away than the sun and the moon. Gen.1:14-18 The firmament was believed to be near enough that a high tower could reach it. Gen. 11:4

8. The winds form a circulatory system. Eccles 1:6

Yes, while the ancients might not have thought of an air circulation system, they were aware of regular changes in wind direction.

9. Earth rotates on its axis. Job 38:12,14

This is an error of interpretation based on a misunderstanding of how the English language has changed since the KJV was first published. "turn" in this passage means simply "change". In the days of King James, the two words were close synonyms. We still use "turn" in the sense of "change" when we say "She turned 16 last week." or "The milk turned sour." The original Hebrew also says "change" not "turn". There is no implication of the earth turning on its axis. In fact all biblical references to the earth speak of it standing firm and still on its foundations, not turning or moving at all.

10. Man’s body composed of the same materials as the earth. Gen. 2:7, 3:19,

Ps. 103:14

Yes, just like the bodies of all living things. This is also supported by the theory of evolution.

So, although the bible gets some things about science right, it does not have a perfect score by any means.

 

[MarkT]

Until you identify which sediments are pre-, syn-, and post-flood, that statement carries little weight.

Neither does yours.

The only way that's possible is if you place the date of the flood at ~220 million years ago, and as you know, humans were not around at that time.

How would we know that?

Anyways, I'm not saying it happened 220 million years ago. I'm saying a mass extinction happened and many species didn't survive and that would be consistent with the Biblical flood theory.

That is not the only time a supercontinental landmass has been assembled on our planet. However making such propositions does not help your position one bit.

Neither does making a statement which you can't prove, unless you have a time machine.

I'm not too sure about the tectonics theory. I'd say it would have taken a catastrophic event to create the plates.

But then after the event, assuming nothing else had changed and the earth's crust was now like the broken skin of an orange, I can't see the plates would move towards each other. Why wouldn't they be in a fix position, all moving in the same direction?

But if some pressure was released, then you could have the plates move.

Let's suppose the fountains of the deep existed in the form of water under pressure and then the water was released. So the earth cracked open, releasing the water, and then the plates that were created by this cracking moved to collide with each other.

And I suppose the Hawaiian Islands would have formed relatively quickly along a crack in the earth as the plates moved apart.

 

[MarkT]

Second, properly understood, evolution ought to have no impact on spiritual matters as it does not discuss them at all. That is why people of very different spiritual views such as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists can all agree on evolution---because it does not impact on spiritual matters.

Properly understood, the Big Bang Theory and abiogenesis are supernatural events.

Why call it science if it can't be observed?

 

[Arikay]

Gluadys:
The original place she posted this (since I suggesting moving to a new thread to make discussion easier), here, http://www.christianforums.com/t144...use-split-from-scientific-proof-of-flood.html suggests that it may be her own writing. Although it obviously has some hovindish facts, it doesn't read like most of the creationist works I have read, especially Hovind (one of the people she named as having read).

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys:
The original place she posted this (since I suggesting moving to a new thread to make discussion easier), here, http://www.christianforums.com/t144...use-split-from-scientific-proof-of-flood.html suggests that it may be her own writing. Although it obviously has some hovindish facts, it doesn't read like most of the creationist works I have read, especially Hovind (one of the people she named as having read).

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.

 

[gluadys]

Properly understood, the Big Bang Theory and abiogenesis are supernatural events.

Why call it science if it can't be observed?

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.