Scientific proof of flood.

[paulrob]

Why is the Bible not a science book? Back in Darwin's day and before there was nothing greater than for a Scientist to find evidence that proved the Bible to be true.

While this was a noble effort on their part, you realize that to many this was only lip service. Sponaneous generation was the origins fairy tale of the day, as evolution is now. After Pasteur, they didn't have a hope of continuing that myth.

True, the war against God was less blatant then, as gentle people like Darwin and his 2 male ancestors demonstrated - you go to church and say all the right things, especially around your wife, then deny God to your close friends.

Actually, the people who discovered that the world was older than 6000 years and that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood were trying to prove these things to be true. It is just that the evidence indicted otherwise.

You have your facts a little skewed. While the name eludes me at the moment, one of Darwins peers made the first serious proposal of gradualism as related to the flood and the age of the earth, and he was deliberately attempting to undermine the Biblical account. He was most definitely trying NOT to support the Biblical view.

Darwin himself was a bit ambivalent to his own theories, finding many flaws in his own logic and facts, but his brother urged him to bring them forward. In a letter to Charles, his brother stated that he saw a way to make it work, and if the facts didn't fit, "so much the worse for the facts" This was a deliberate attempt to deny the Biblical tradition, even though the facts didn't support the theory.

6000 years? yeh, thats not hard to disprove, because the Bible doesn't state that nor support it. This is one of those many cases where people say the Bible says something, and then tell you why the Bibhle is in error. Good strawman logic, but poor science. The age of the earth Biblically is about 13,000 currently. I could give you all the reasons and evididence for this but why? it doesn't mean you'd accept it anyway.

The people who became popular and got all the funding were the ones that managed to come up with evidence that proved people beliefs to be true. They would get lots of media attention and the public would get real excited about it.

Actually, you don't get published today if you are a creationist. Or even a Christian with a logical objection. Nature refused Phillip Johnson a rebuttal after his book was savagely attacked and misrepresented in it. The editor wrote that this was en evolutionary magazine, and creationist arguments would be out of line.

Other publications have ceased publishing certain authors after their creationist views became known.

So no, the money goes to those who support the part line.

The results today is we have a heritage of HUGE amounts of scientific evidence that shows the Bible is true. It is just that there is never enough evidence for the skeptic. But many a good Scientist has devoted their entire life to seeking evidence for the truthfulness of our Bible.

I agree completely, and the evidence if there to the unbiased observer. You don't have to cover up your frauds, lie and forge exhibits - just look at the facts, and Creation is the logical conclusion.

 

[Girl_4_God]

Here is something the Lord has recently showed me:

Speak not in the ears of a fool for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 23:9

And thats why I'm leaving. It is foolish of me to keep debating over things that I know are true to people that don't even believe the Bible.

Jenny

 

[Arikay]

Thats unfortunate that you are leaving. You have obviously ignored the fact that many here believe in the bible. What many don't believe in is the false information spread by some creationist groups.

Hopefully in the future you will start to look at all sides and see if creationist arguments actually stand up to scrutiny.

Here is something the Lord has recently showed me:

Speak not in the ears of a fool for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 23:9

And thats why I'm leaving. It is foolish of me to keep debating over things that I know are true to people that don't even believe the Bible.

Jenny

 

[HRE]

Here is something the Lord has recently showed me:

Speak not in the ears of a fool for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 23:9

And thats why I'm leaving. It is foolish of me to keep debating over things that I know are true to people that don't even believe the Bible.

Jenny

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

When Jesus came across the non-believers or those that had been forsaken by religion, what did he do?

 

[JGMEERT]

Actually, you don't get published today if you are a creationist. Or even a Christian with a logical objection. Nature refused Phillip Johnson a rebuttal after his book was savagely attacked and misrepresented in it. The editor wrote that this was en evolutionary magazine, and creationist arguments would be out of line.
Other publications have ceased publishing certain authors after their creationist views became known.
So no, the money goes to those who support the part line.

JM: Bzzt, I am so sorry you are not being truthful. John Baumgardner is known to be a young earth creationist, but he has been published in Nature, Science and many other journals. Steve Austin (ye-creationist) noted his affiliation to ICR on his Internation Geology Review article. In addition, the article was concerned with the biblical story of Amos. John Woodmorappe (writing as Jan Peczkis) has published in the J. of Vertebrate paleontology. Austin, Humphreys and Snelling have repeatedly presented their papers at AGU (American Geophysical Union) and GSA (Geological Society of America) meetings. Money? AIG and ICR are multi-million dollar tax-exempt insitutions. The Discovery Institute is a multi-million dollar organization. They are well-funded. The more interesting reality is that a secular scientist is not allowed to present at AIG or ICR conferences. You've got your story bass-akwards.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[MarkT]

But that's just storytelling, really. The plates already move and we have evidence of their gradual motions over long periods of time that are inconsistent with your storytelling. Evidence trumps unsubstantiated storytelling.

I'm saying the water under the sea was released and that caused the low pressure that fractured the earth's crust into plates and it allowed magma to the surface through fractures in the crust.

Something had to caused the plates. Something had to cause the sea floor to begin to spread around 200 Ma years ago. Is it coincidence that you don't find any sea floor rocks older than 200 Ma years old?

I'm saying they formed at the end of the Triassic and something had to trigger the event.

There must have been tremendous volcanic activity 200 Ma years ago to set the plates in motion. Structures like the Mid Atlantic Ridge were created. The sea floor began to spread.

There was more volcanic activity than today, of course, so it stands to reason the plates were moving faster than they are moving today. The convection currents would have swept the continents apart.

As for the Hawaiian Islands; are you saying the Hot Spot followed the fracture or is it more likely the islands are in a line because they are on a fracture.

There are supposed to be 80 large volcanoes in the Hawaii/Emperor Seamount Chain along a broad ridge that marks an active fracture system. Now certainly this fracture didn't orient itself.

Now I can see how you might get that pattern of islands (the Hawaiian Islands) by rotation. Plates don't move in a straight line. They move by rotation around an axis and that, along with spreading, moves them forward.

But two problems:

1. the fracture would be rotating as well and

2. you would end up with the islands speading out towards the east instead of towards the west unless the forward motion due to spreading was great enough to overcome the effects of the rotation. And the Pacific Plate would have to be moving due north and not north west to overcome the effect of rotation.

Also, assuming the fracture didn't rotate, it would mean the islands were formed through unbroken crust.

What's more likely?

The Pacific Plate is moving on the same line and in the same direction as the fracture so that the Hot Spot is always under the fracture or did the islands form along the fracture, one after another, as one volcano after another got plugged up?

The analogy would be like fixing a leak along a water pipe would create another leak in the line.

 

[Girl_4_God]

Thats unfortunate that you are leaving. You have obviously ignored the fact that many here believe in the bible. What many don't believe in is the false information spread by some creationist groups.

Hopefully in the future you will start to look at all sides and see if creationist arguments actually stand up to scrutiny.

My last post,

O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of Science falsly so called, Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee Amen.
1 Timothy 6:20-21

Bye,
Jenny

 

[notto]

My last post,

O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of Science falsly so called, Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee Amen.
1 Timothy 6:20-21

Bye,
Jenny

You might want to do some study on that verse. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I'm saying the water under the sea was released and that caused the low pressure that fractured the earth's crust into plates and it allowed magma to the surface through fractures in the crust.

Unsupported assertion.

Something had to caused the plates.

When magma effectively congeals to create a solid crust that overlies a hot, convecting interior, there will be plates.

Something had to cause the sea floor to begin to spread around 200 Ma years ago.

Convection cells in the mantle caused this. Upwelling material from two convection cells in opposite directions (like in a pot of boiling water) would cause the crust to split. This is what we see in the middle of the Atlantic.

But it's not as if the plates just started moving 220 Ma. Nothing had to cause this to "begin" because it was an ongoing process.

For example, we see this type of thing happening in Africa: the Great Rift Valley is a place where the crust is extending and breaking. This is analagous to Pangea breaking up. So it's happening today with no "big cause" like you are implying.

Is it coincidence that you don't find any sea floor rocks older than 200 Ma years old?

No, it's not a coincidence. The seafloor recycles back into the mantle via subduction as per my previous post.

I'm saying they formed at the end of the Triassic and something had to trigger the event.

It's an ongoing process. We have oceanic crust preserved on the continents that is older than 220 my. These are slivers of the oceanic crust that are obducted (rather than subducted) onto the continent.

There must have been tremendous volcanic activity 200 Ma years ago to set the plates in motion. Structures like the Mid Atlantic Ridge were created. The sea floor began to spread.

Unsupported assertion. The plates were already in motion. It would have been analagous to the Great Rift Valley, as above.

There was more volcanic activity than today, of course, so it stands to reason the plates were moving faster than they are moving today. The convection currents would have swept the continents apart.

Unsupported assertion. We're talking about only 220 Ma. Radiometric dating shows that they did not move substantially faster.

As for the Hawaiian Islands; are you saying the Hot Spot followed the fracture or is it more likely the islands are in a line because they are on a fracture.

The hot spot is stable while the Pacific plate moves over it at a relatively constant rate.

There are supposed to be 80 large volcanoes in the Hawaii/Emperor Seamount Chain along a broad ridge that marks an active fracture system. Now certainly this fracture didn't orient itself.

It's not an active fracture system. It's in the middle of a plate away from any boundaries.

Now I can see how you might get that pattern of islands (the Hawaiian Islands) by rotation. Plates don't move in a straight line. They move by rotation around an axis and that, along with spreading, moves them forward.

But two problems:

1. the fracture would be rotating as well and

This isn't a problem because it doesn't have anything to do with a fracture.

2. you would end up with the islands speading out towards the east instead of towards the west unless the forward motion due to spreading was great enough to overcome the effects of the rotation. And the Pacific Plate would have to be moving due north and not north west to overcome the effect of rotation.

This doesn't even make any sense. We have a plate moving WNW, approximately, over a hot spot. The islands would also be in a WNW chain as the direction of the plate moves away from the hot spot.

Also, assuming the fracture didn't rotate, it would mean the islands were formed through unbroken crust.

The hot spot causes melting to occur. There isn't a single fracture involved here. As the plate continues to move the hot spot effectively melts through a new part of the plate.

What's more likely?

The Pacific Plate is moving on the same line and in the same direction as the fracture so that the Hot Spot is always under the fracture or did the islands form along the fracture, one after another, as one volcano after another got plugged up?

The analogy would be like fixing a leak along a water pipe would create another leak in the line.

The problem here is that your understanding of the Hawaiian Island chain is inconsistent with what the conclusions of actual sciences are. I don't know how you got any of this from the thread I started, and I certainly don't see how this addresses any of the problems they pose for catasrophic plate tectonism.

 

[Arikay]

Again, sorry you are leaving, again.

Hopefully in the future you will come to understand that your sources are not reliable for scientific information and that they have lied to you about evolution.

They are also not reliable when it comes to the bible either. As Notto pointed out, the verse doesn't mean what you think it means.

Unfortunately I think it is often overwhelming when people realize their sources are wrong, and this is a common response. I have seen quite a few people have this reaction when confronted with non creationist information. Many of them have since become evolutionists (and stayed christian). But it did take time.

My last post,

O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of Science falsly so called, Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee Amen.
1 Timothy 6:20-21

Bye,
Jenny

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

My last post,

O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of Science falsly so called, Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee Amen.
1 Timothy 6:20-21

Bye,
Jenny

Just because you've been lied to by your sources and people are pointing out the flaws in the things you post here from those sources doesn't mean you have to take your ball and go home. You could take this opportunity to learn.

 

[Arikay]

You have to admit, it must be shocking. For 10 years she has been told evolution is atheism, no transitional fossils exist, evolution says the big bang came from nothing, etc. To learn that it is all untrue and her sources didn't even define evolution right, is a pretty big shock.

I know in two of my hobbies, there is practically no way I could sit down and explain to my friends they have got it all wrong and have them believe me even though it should be obvious I know what I'm talking about, they stick with what they think is true. Some have eventually learned for themselves and changed over time.
Combine the general unwillingness to accept you got something wrong with her sources telling her that evolution is against her religion and evil and an overnight change to even be willing to accept the truth is very unlikely.

 

[JohnR7]

While this was a noble effort on their part, you realize that to many this was only lip service.

There are always going to be self serving people. But there were a few good Godly men who were willing to sacrifice themselves in order to be of service to others. Those are the ones we read about in our history book because they were a lot more accurate in what they said. They were not looking for personal recognition and the honors of men, they loved the truth and were willing to do whatever they had to do to seek after the truth.

 

[JohnR7]

It is foolish of me to keep debating over things that I know are true to people that don't even believe the Bible.

If they approached science with the same method they use to try to understand the Bible, they would never make it out of elementary school.

 

[raphael_aa]

If they approached science with the same method they use to try to understand the Bible, they would never make it out of elementary school.

There it is again: that sanctified self righteousness that claims that it alone has the 'true' understanding of scriptures and that alternative views, no matter how carefully and prayerfully arrived at, MUST be wrong.

 

[MarkT]

The problem here is that your understanding of the Hawaiian Island chain is inconsistent with what the conclusions of actual sciences are. I don't know how you got any of this from the thread I started, and I certainly don't see how this addresses any of the problems they pose for catasrophic plate tectonism.

Of course I don't agree with what science actually says.

I don't think the flood happened 200 Ma years ago. Sorry if I didn't say it clearly.

I'm not sure how to put it.

200 Ma years is the date that currently corresponds to the time when I think it happened; the end of the Triassic period.

I'm not saying I agree with the date.

I don't know when the flood actually occurred except that it was in the 600th year of Noah's life.

 

[JohnR7]

I don't know when the flood actually occurred except that it was in the 600th year of Noah's life.

That would work out to be somewhere around 2300 bc.

 

[corvus_corax]

If they approached science with the same method they use to try to understand the Bible, they would never make it out of elementary school.

Arrogance and condescension is uncalled for.
Most unChristlike.

It's a shame we get this kind of condescending attitude from a person who professes to be a Pentacostal.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Of course I don't agree with what science actually says.

I know that, even though you have no reasonable basis to disagree.

My point was that the formation model of the Hawaiian Island chain you were trying to argue against was not the actual explanation geologists have for their formation.

I don't think the flood happened 200 Ma years ago. Sorry if I didn't say it clearly.

I know that also. But there are two problems with that:

1. You don't have any evidence that points to a proper date for this flood (much less, any evidence for this flood at all).

2. You are claiming this flood occurred when the continents were assembled as Pangea, 220 Ma according to modern geology. You are arbitrarily dismissing the evidence that (a) points to the older dates and (b) indicates that Pangea was not split rapidly.

I'm not sure how to put it.

200 Ma years is the date that currently corresponds to the time when I think it happened; the end of the Triassic period.

I'm not saying I agree with the date.

But, again, you have no evidence against it, nor do you have evidence for another date that would suit what you want to be true.

I don't know when the flood actually occurred except that it was in the 600th year of Noah's life.

And the bottom line is that you are making it all up as you go along without any supporting facts because it is something you want to be true regardless of what the evidence actually indicates. The story you want to be true has been conclusively disproved, and you have shown no reason to think otherwise.

 

[JohnR7]

Arrogance and condescension is uncalled for.
Most unChristlike.

Oh, did we step on some toes? People usually get upset when they feel convicted.