The Flood (2)

[AV1611VET]

Fixed.

You wonder why "scientists" are always wanting something explained from their POV, and never the Bible's?

They have invested a lot of money to obtain this knowledge.

And what did Jesus say?

[bible]Luke 12:34[/bible]

This is why geologists are so adamant someone explain the Flood from a geological POV, and an astronomer is so adamant someone explain the universe from their POV, and a chemist, and a botanist, and a zoologist, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Frankly I've never actually understood why some people find science to be so damaging to their religion, especially something as friendly as geology.

Interesting choice of words in view of my last post.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Meh. There seem to be folks in each of those fields who disagree with evolution. But I still don't think evolution contradicts the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meh. There seem to be folks in each of those fields who disagree with evolution. But I still don't think evolution contradicts the Bible.

Have you ever seen this thread before?

 

[Contracelsus]

Fine --- to clear all confusion: God did it.

There ya go! God did it.

That works for you and I'm guessing you don't have to explore for oil or do anything in the earth sciences.

If people believe that God did it is enough for them then so be it. Just as long as they realize that science doesn't work like that and they should maybe just keep away from science if they don't understand it.

That's cool. We can all get along.

 

[Loudmouth]

You wonder why "scientists" are always wanting something explained from their POV, and never the Bible's?

The map is not the territory.

Scientists want something explained through evidence, not superstition.

 

[Contracelsus]

You wonder why "scientists" are always wanting something explained from their POV, and never the Bible's?

Because the Bible doesn't really tell us anything about earth science?

They have invested a lot of money to obtain this knowledge.

Oh c'mon, man. That's just silly. Honestly. This is silly.

Do you really think scientists stick with science because they paid a lot for their degrees???

Maybe you need to talk to some scientists. They didn't pay for their degrees as much as they WORKED for their degrees!

These folks spent years and years working really really hard to understand things.

And what did Jesus say?

Didn't he say something about whatever you want someone to do to you, do to them?

So if you think scientists are sticking with science because they "paid" a lot for their degrees, then maybe we should assume you love the KJV because you paid a lot for your copy of it?

Maybe we should think you don't really "believe in god" but you adamantly use the Bible to explain things because it cost you a lot of time and some money?

Hope you're OK with that assessment.

This is why geologists are so adamant someone explain the Flood from a geological POV

I think Baggins and others here have pointed out about a billion trillion times that the first geologists were Christians who were looking for information in support of the Biblical Flood of Noah. They didn't find it.

The data didn't agree with the Bible. The Bible POV turned out to explain the world a lot more poorly than they expected.

, and an astronomer is so adamant someone explain the universe from their POV, and a chemist, and a botanist, and a zoologist, etc.

And you seem to think that a geologist, astronomer, chemist and botanist DON'T see eye to eye on how data is interpretted?

Wow. You really don't understand science do you?

 

[Split Rock]

You wonder why "scientists" are always wanting something explained from their POV, and never the Bible's?

They have invested a lot of money to obtain this knowledge.

AVET, if every creationist followed your earlier suggestions, then scientists would not be asking for these explanations. Case in point: You tried to argue that the fact that most of the earth has been underwater at some time in the past shows that there was a global flood. I called you on it. I would not have posted anything if you had not tried to use geology to prove the Flood. Money has nothing to do with it.

 

[NailsII]

You wonder why "scientists" are always wanting something explained from their POV, and never the Bible's?

They have invested a lot of money to obtain this knowledge.

And what did Jesus say?

[bible]Luke 12:34[/bible]

This is why geologists are so adamant someone explain the Flood from a geological POV, and an astronomer is so adamant someone explain the universe from their POV, and a chemist, and a botanist, and a zoologist, etc.

Maybe because a 'spiritual' person (whatever that means) with little scientific background will be happy with a supernatural answer.
A scientific person on the other hand, would normally only be satisfied with a scientific conclusion, based on rational evidence and supported by repeated analysis and peer-review.
i will accept there is a lot of middle ground here, it should not be a case of one or the other.
Therefore, if a geologist uncovers evidence for a world-wide flood which covered ALL the earth to the top of the highest mountain no less within the last 10,000 years, it can be seen as evidence to support such a claim.
Until that day, I'm afraid we shall have to keep looking at the mountain of biological, genetic, paeleanological (sic!) and isotopic evidence that suggests otherwise.

But regardless of money and investement, anyone would defend their life's works, even when the evidence against them became great. It is indeed a great man who will refute his work, rather than defend it until his dying breath has past when evidence contradicts him.

 

[Baggins]

I'll tell you what I understand, Baggins. I understand that you guys love to deny a global flood occurred, then spend the rest of your time explaining every square mile of the earth in terms of local floods. That's sad.

No AV that is telling the simple truth.

 

[Baggins]

I would also like to point out that I invested no money at all to get my geological credentials, the government paid me to do my BSc and a government research agency paid for me to do my MSc.

I have since been paid by a number of oilfield services companies including Texas Instruments, Halliburton and Schlumberger.

I have invested nothing financially to obtain my knowledge, in fact I have been paid by government and big business to do it every step of the way.

Why would an unscrupulous multi-national like Halliburton pay little me large amounts of wonga to find oil for them if i am using techniques that are wrong?

Shouldn't Halliburton have a crack team of Theologians on the case doing hydrocarbon exploration?

 

[NailsII]

Shouldn't Halliburton have a crack team of Theologians on the case doing hydrocarbon exploration?

Don't forget the graphologists, astrologers and dousers, without whom you wouldn't stand a chance of hiring the right people, finding anything on the right day or avoiding underwater streams/rivers/lakes which act as reservoirs for the flood.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You left a prefix out. One site called it a "super flood," and the other called it a "megaflood."



If it's how the rock was "created" that you want to know, read Genesis 1.

Ok AV. I am going to refer to this post every time you falsely claim that you don't subscribe to the Omphalos hypothesis because it is exactly what you are doing here.

I got a volume that's more eloquent than you'll ever be:

Now does any creation have an answer to Baggins' question about the formation of the White Cliffs of Dover that goes beyond "poof God did it"?

It is eloquent but it has nothing to do with science.

Now does any creationist have an answer to Baggins' question about the formation of the White Cliffs of Dover that goes beyond AV's "Poof God did it"?

 

[FishFace]

Now you know why such things as embedded age is so hard to understand. It took me over a year to explain it, and you guys still don't understand it.

We understand it, we just don't agree there's any difference between embedded age and embedded history. (Or whatever it is you call the other thing that you incessantly refuse to distinguish)

 

[FishFace]

I would too if I were you.

And I would too if I were you... So what?

Are you going to make an argument as to the merits of your interpretation? I guess not, since whenever I ask you to justify your claim that a self-fulfilling prophecy is a certain guarantor of a book's accuracy, you don't reply.

 

[FishFace]

Well, mutiple layers are most likely connected to the FLOOD. There are likely asteroid strike layers, volcanic erruption layers, earthquake layers, mud flow layers, submersion layers, more volcanic layes, more asteroid layers, crust shifting layers, etc... There is not going to be one single "FLOOD" layer. Far too much took place for that to be the case.

So... which layers?

Can you point roughly to the time period a geologist would assign to rocks of the flood period in this article?

 

[FishFace]

You wonder why "scientists" are always wanting something explained from their POV, and never the Bible's?

I guess it's the same reason you would want a disease you or someone close to you had contracted explained and treated in terms of its biochemistry, genetics and so on, not in terms of the Qu'Ran.

This is why geologists are so adamant someone explain the Flood from a geological POV, and an astronomer is so adamant someone explain the universe from their POV, and a chemist, and a botanist, and a zoologist, etc.

Maybe it's because explaining it from their "point of view" (i.e. from the evidence) works.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now does any creationist have an answer to Baggins' question about the formation of the White Cliffs of Dover that goes beyond AV's "Poof God did it"?

As long as you keep assuming it was formed, you're not going to understand. If it was indeed formed, then it was form quickly. If it wasn't formed, then it was embedded underground from Creation through the Flood, then appeared when God split Pangaea apart.

Just like if you had a jar of pennies with a fifty-cent piece in it somewhere, and you reach down and split the pennies into seven piles, and the fifty-cent piece is exposed.

 

[AV1611VET]

We understand it, we just don't agree there's any difference between embedded age and embedded history. (Or whatever it is you call the other thing that you incessantly refuse to distinguish)

Ya --- you sound like you understand it [rolls eyes].

 

[FishFace]

Ya --- you sound like you understand it [rolls eyes].

I know - you, however, sound like you don't.