The order of fossils in the geological column

[OldWiseGuy]

What restoration in Genesis 1?

Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation. Verse two begins the story of the restoration of the earth from a great cataclysm which included global flooding.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm 29 and married, I'm British and I don't know any (I don't think I do) religious people.

How do I know it was just in your head? that's like saying, how do I know that a cloaked alien was not stood behind you putting thoughts in your head? I ask is it likely? and my answer is no.
Why couldn't the divine experience have been brought about by Allah? why the Christian God, we both know the answer to that don't we? you have only had dealings with the Christian God, that's why near death experiences all over the world conform to the religion of the person the experience happens too, they all see what they have been taught to see.

You will believe what you want to believe no matter what the truth is so perhaps we should leave it there,
it was nice talking to you even though I will never ever understand where you're coming from.
Take care.

Why do you have such an issue with someone who chooses to have faith on subjective personal experiences? Armoured clearly does not claim he has objective evidence and or is putting himself on some type of pedestal and claiming he is better than you, because of his belief. He also appears to accept science, where there is objective evidence to support it.

You act as if his belief on faith is harming you in some way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So a flood coming in at the speed of an average tide wouldn't pick up and deposit a lot of sediments along the way? This has been one of my points all along; little evidence of erosion/deposition. Science looks for a 'high water mark', but if the flood covered nearly all landforms there is no high water mark.

Science often reinterprets evidence. I fully expect that science will one day admit to the possibility of a global flood; a flood like I have described.

The closest thing you would get to the world flooded would be if the polar ice caps melted and all that water was released to raise the oceans. And that still wouldn't be enough to flood the world, although considering humans typically like to live by bodies of water, where floods are an increased risk, terrible floods could appear to ancient peoples to "flood the whole world".

 

[Dusty Bin]

Science often reinterprets evidence. I fully expect that science will one day admit to the possibility of a global flood; a flood like I have described.

Why could it happen one day and not now? will there be any more evidence one day? science can read the signs of ancient floods today so what will change in the future? why do you keep going on about this? it's a dead end.

May I suggest that you get out more and read material other than religious pamphlets, although I can easily understand why you don't.

 

[Dusty Bin]

You act as if his belief on faith is harming you in some way.

His faith is not harming me in any way, I simply asked him why he needed to use faith to believe something?
I was interested why he would do such a thing that's all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That makes no sense at all. A flood a million years ago that lasted a couple of weeks would leave far less evidence that a global Flood 4500 years ago that lasted a year.

I said a flood that lasted a million years, not a flood a million years ago. A million year flood could have happened 100 million years ago. The point is that if the land remains in a flooded condition for a million years there would be lots of bottom sedimentation apparent when the flood finally dried up. Not so with a flood that lasted only one year.

I drive past a corn field that had been under water for more than five years before finally drying up. There were no accumulated sediments and the cut stalks from the last harvested corn crop were still sticking out of the ground. Also, as the water receded weeds began to grow immediately, covering the bare ground as if nothing had happened. There was no evidence that the field had ever been flooded.

Scientists (apparently) believe that flood waters are in constant motion, churning, eroding, and depositing. The truth is that after the initial surge, which can be quite gentle, the water is calm. Check the evening news. There are floods occurring all over the place from heavy rains. Notice that almost none of the flood water is moving. Check the videos taken from the air of the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina. Notice that the only moving water is coming over the breached levies. The calm flood waters from those breaches cover hundreds of square miles, without so much as a ripple in sight.

 

[bhsmte]

His faith is not harming me in any way, I simply asked him why he needed to use faith to believe something?
I was interested why he would do such a thing that's all.

Everyone is unique, from a psychological standpoint and we have different needs. Why can't someone believe something on faith, if it makes them a better person and also their belief does not force them to reject reality, which is clearly not the case with Armoured. You act as if everyone should think as you think.

Now, when someone needs to reject reality because of their faith and or has convinced themselves they have objective evidence for their faith (when none exists), I would agree, you likely have someone who is only playing games with themselves, engaging in confirmation bias and turning a blind eye to obvious objective evidence. With some, this is the case, with others, it isn't.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I said a flood that lasted a million years, not a flood a million years ago. A million year flood could have happened 100 million years ago. The point is that if the land remains in a flooded condition for a million years there would be lots of bottom sedimentation apparent when the flood finally dried up. Not so with a flood that lasted only one year.

I drive past a corn field that had been under water for more than five years before finally drying up. There were no accumulated sediments and the cut stalks from the last harvested corn crop were still sticking out of the ground. Also, as the water receded weeds began to grow immediately, covering the bare ground as if nothing had happened.

It wasn't a global event that resulted in the die off of most of the world's life.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And yet you keep claiming that some of the story may be taken as "poetic language". How do you determine what is poetic language in the story and what is not? Please tell me it isn't determined just by which parts support your hypothesis.

No, I said parts of the story are described in poetic language. The phase "open the windows of heaven" is poetic language for rain.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes in 1611, witches were still being burnt at the stake then, that's how much they knew.
It's a song meant to inspire so what does it matter? are words all you care about because words can be changed as you well know, "in God we trust" comes to mind, which one day will be removed as easily as it was put on.

Interesting you could say IN GOD WE TRUST, but saying GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, which is what I asked, you conveniently left out.

That's okay though.

An independent fundamental Baptist took care of it for you.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Everyone is unique, from a psychological standpoint and we have different needs. Why can't someone believe something on faith, if it makes them a better person and also their belief does not force them to reject reality, which is clearly not the case with Armoured. You act as if everyone should think as you think.

Now, when someone needs to reject reality because of their faith and or has convinced themselves they have objective evidence for their faith (when none exists), I would agree, you likely have someone who is only playing games with themselves, engaging in confirmation bias and turning a blind eye to obvious objective evidence. With some, this is the case, with others, it isn't.

Because I asked a question and I am condemning them, how? I wanted to know why he believed so I asked.

To believe something on faith is irrational, so if you believe something on faith you can expect to be called irrational.
If an adult says they believe in Father Christmas people will laugh at them, it's a normal reaction when someone does something irrational.

I truly believe that faith is nothing more than gullibility, if you don't have sufficient evidence to make you believe something you should not believe it, you never ever say that you're going to believe it anyway.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Interesting you could say IN GOD WE TRUST, but saying GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, which is what I asked, you conveniently left out.

That's okay though.

An independent fundamental Baptist took care of it for you.

British people can alternatively say Long Live the Queen.

 

[bhsmte]

Because I asked a question and I am condemning them, how? I wanted to know why he believed so I asked.

To believe something on faith is irrational, so if you believe something on faith you can expect to be called irrational.
If an adult says they believe in Father Christmas people will laugh at them, it's a normal reaction when someone does something irrational.

I truly believe that faith is nothing more than gullibility, if you don't have sufficient evidence to make you believe something you should not believe it, you never ever say that you're going to believe it anyway.

Ignoring reality is irrational. Show me where Armoured is ignoring what objective evidence would show to be reality.

 

[Dusty Bin]

British people can alternatively say Long Live the Queen.

British people can say what they like.

 

[PsychoSarah]

British people can say what they like.

I sometimes reflexively say Oh My God when faced with ridiculous or unbelievable situations. I don't see how saying stuff like that would make an atheist a hypocrite.

 

[AV1611VET]

British people can alternatively say Long Live the Queen.

Good for them.

I asked about something specific: the national anthem.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Ignoring reality is irrational. Show me where Armoured is ignoring what objective evidence would show to be reality.

If you believe something without sufficient reason to believe it you are being irrational be it subjective or objective.

If asked I would say that little red riding hood had a red coat, if ask whether I really believed that I would say of course not because little red riding hood doesn't exist, if someone asked if Armoured believed his God existed he would say yes,
is that subjective or objective? one minute his God is in his mind then the next his God exists, is he being rational or irrational? if you are going to change the meaning of the word "exist" then there nothing more I can say.

 

[Dusty Bin]

I sometimes reflexively say Oh My God when faced with ridiculous or unbelievable situations. I don't see how saying stuff like that would make an atheist a hypocrite.

What I meant was that some people do sing what they like, especially in the armed forces, they have a different song.

 

[bhsmte]

If you believe something without sufficient reason to believe it you are being irrational be it subjective or objective.

If asked I would say that little red riding hood had a red coat, if ask whether I really believed that I would say of course not because little red riding hood doesn't exist, if someone asked if Armoured believed his God existed he would say yes,
is that subjective or objective? one minute his God is in his mind then the next his God exists, is he being rational or irrational?

It is up to each person to determine what sufficient reason is, not you. As long as someone does not ignore what can objectively shown to be reality, they are not being irrational, because you can only be rational about what can be objectively shown.

 

[Dusty Bin]

It is up to each person to determine what sufficient reason is, not you. As long as someone does not ignore what can objectively shown to be reality, they are not being irrational, because you can only be rational about what can be objectively shown.

All I did was ask a question.

Has Christianity changed the meaning of the word "exist"? or does it still mean exist? if not their God does not "exist".