Thin layer of silt proves flood

[Aussie Pete]

Not necessarily. Just the assumption of a supernatural being doesn't automatically imply any particular theological belief is correct.

In fact, statistically speaking any individual theological belief is most likely incorrect.

Lies, damned lies and statistics......... You know enough to know why I don't accept your statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To quote the former slave trader, John Newton, "I was blind but now I see". I was born again shortly before my 21st birthday. I'd never read the Bible. For reasons that you would not understand, I could not read it. How do you describe the stars to someone born totally blind? Those who are not born again are blind spiritually.

You live in the natural realm alone. There is a far higher realm, the spiritual realm. I live physically in the natural realm. I am now alive spiritually so I live in the spiritual realm also. A blind person demand proof that there are such things as stars. The fact that no one can prove it to them just not mean that stars do not exist. I have access to knowledge that you do not. It's available only to those who are spiritually alive.

In other words I was correct in my assessment that you do not know. All that you have is mere belief. As the saying goes:

" if you can't show it, you don't know it".

Please don't give us this spiritually alive nonsense either. Don't make false accusations about others simply because you cannot support your own beliefs. I politely asked you to support your claims and you used that as an excuse to attack others. There is no reason that one cannot be spiritually alive and accept reality. In fact your attack is an attack on anyone that claims to be spiritual.

You should have simply admitted that you did not know that the Bible was God's word. That you merely believed it. Then we could have discussed whether your beliefs were justified or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I am right then you are in a great deal of trouble. If I am wrong, so what? I have a wonderful life that I would trade for anything or with anyone. If there is no God, I'll never know. If there is a God, you will have some explaining to do. Many atheists have been converted. A comedian, Jeff Allen, testifies to the reality of God. He was an atheist, and God revealed Himself. Do yourself a favour. Look him up on youtube.

So you so not tithe for your church. And you do not value knowledge. At least that is what I see here.

And of course Pascal's wager fails because it does not take into account that a God may punish someone more severely for worshiping the "wrong God" than for worshiping no God at all.

 

[Speedwell]

"For as the days of Noah were so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be". Think about this, how impossible is this prophecy if Noah never happened in the first place. How can the end of the age be like the days of Noah if there never was a Noah? Yet 2,000 years later there is a very clear comparison, not with the age of Noah, but with the "Days of Noah".

What were the key days? Surely the day that Noah learned that there would be a flood and that he needed to build a boat. Then the day when they all entered the boat, the day when it started to rain, etc. We also have had that day where we realized we are in the midst of the 6th great extinction, and there was the day we began to build the ark, a seed bank to try and preserve all the creatures DNA, etc.

You can argue about whether or not there was a Noah's flood, but without the boat you will never conclusively prove this story was true. Likewise, no one can conclusively prove it was false. I see no harm in those who are actively searching for evidence of the flood, on the other hand I do see harm in those who assure everyone that it never happened. Wanting to see evidence is one thing, but assuring people that it never happened when time and time again your "logic" turns out wrong is just darkness. But what is most important to me is that it is a harbinger of the end of the age.

So basically, you are declining to make the distinction suggested.

 

[pitabread]

Lies, damned lies and statistics......... You know enough to know why I don't accept your statement.

You don't think it's a remarkable coincidence that you happened to be born into a time and place where the "correct" religion just happens to be one the dominant religions of our culture?

 

[KCfromNC]

That is illogical. Noah and his family passed the stories on generation to generation.

Even the stories of cultures which survived intact through the flood with zero stories about it. Quite interesting, that.

God ensured that we have a record of what really happened. It's called the Bible.

Does the Bible mention your idea that Noah collected and saved the written and oral accounts from every other civilization at the time and then restored them after the flood? I couldn't find a mention of it.

 

[KCfromNC]

If I am right then you are in a great deal of trouble. If I am wrong, so what?

To adjust the world to your particular faith, we'd need to reject large swaths of modern science and the technology built on it - you know, in order to reconcile it with the facts you claim to "know". Seem like a lot of effort to go through for no good reason.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The account of Noah's flood found in the Bible says that the rainbows we can view today were only seen after the flood. This makes sense to me if the whole world was surrounded by a canopy of water and no sunlight could get through to form a rainbow. That would also account for the massive amount of water needed to cover the Himalayan mountains with water.

The poster who said that the world wide flood found in the Bible is a plasable occurance is correct.

I am a supporter of the canopy theroy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The account of Noah's flood found in the Bible says that the rainbows we can view today were only seen after the flood. This makes sense to me if the whole world was surrounded by a canopy of water and no sunlight could get through to form a rainbow. That would also account for the massive amount of water needed to cover the Himalayan mountains with water.

The poster who said that the world wide flood found in the Bible is a plasable occurance is correct.

I am a supporter of the canopy theroy.

How would this "canopy of water" stay up? You are proposing what sounds like a physical impossibility.

And if you cover the Himalayas where did the water go after the flood? It has to cover the Earth for almost a year if you remember the story.

EDIT: And why did you ignore the question about a person waking up in a seedy hotel in a bathtub full of ice. You are in essence claiming that this is a real life possibility. It is one of the more fun facts that refute the flood story.

And there is no "canopy theory". You can prove it yourself. What reasonable test based upon your "theory's" own merit could possibly refute it? If you do not have such a test you do not have a theory.

And the URL of a site appears at the top of your display. For example the URL for this site begins "christianforums.com/threads/thin-layer-of-silt . . . " Are you using a desktop, a laptop, a phone, or a tablet?

 

[pitabread]

The account of Noah's flood found in the Bible says that the rainbows we can view today were only seen after the flood. This makes sense to me if the whole world was surrounded by a canopy of water and no sunlight could get through to form a rainbow. That would also account for the massive amount of water needed to cover the Himalayan mountains with water.

The poster who said that the world wide flood found in the Bible is a plasable occurance is correct.

I am a supporter of the canopy theroy.

Canopy theory? Really? Even Answers in Genesis thinks that is nonsense...

 

[Tolworth John]

And completely ignore geology and physics.

The case is made by qualified geologists and physicists.

 

[Tolworth John]

No, that is not evidence. That is an ad hoc explanation that is not supported by closer scrutiny of the sedimentary layers.

That is not what the qualified geologists who support a global flood say.

 

[Speedwell]

That is not what the qualified geologists who support a global flood say.

Since there can't be very many, perhaps you could at least name them. And perhaps you could explain why they insist on a global flood when the Bible, itself, does not.

 

[Tolworth John]

No it can't.

Sorry, but qualified geologists who believe in a global flood say otherwise.

Said process would release enough energy to cook all living things on the planet.

Surely you can recognise a hypothetical situation.
But you have a problem.
Geologists believe there used to e only one continent, there would not have been high mountains on this continent, so it is very likely that the amount of water in the sea would have submerged that continent.
Can you say where all this water car from?

 

[Tolworth John]

Since there can't be very many, perhaps you could at least name them. And perhaps you could explain why they insist on a global flood when the Bible, itself, does not.

Check out the geologists in creation.com and answersingenesis.

As for a global flood the final say all life died, and given the size and length of the flood it cannot be anything but a global flood.

 

[Larniavc]

Your view is out of date. I have a book called "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb, published in 1961.

Beutiful.

 

[Ophiolite]

Check out the geologists in creation.com and answersingenesis..

Is it a lack of skill, or a lack of courtesy that prevents you from directing us to specific portions of what is a very large site? Or are you, perhaps, hoping no one will bother to invest the time to search through such a site and you may then claim we are close minded? Only the first of these three explanations is an acceptable one. I wait with interest for your explanation.

 

[pitabread]

The case is made by qualified geologists and physicists.

That's debatable.

And regardless of a person's credentials, it doesn't change the fact creationist flood models themselves defy geology and physics.

For example, all flood models I've seen from creationists would release enough energy to boil off the ocean. Noah would have needed a space ship, not a boat, to survive it.

A person's credentials don't change the laws of physics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The suggestion that all life died - apart some animals on a boat - is unworkable. There is no evidence of anything approaching such extinction in the relevant period. It would take far more than the animals on the ark to re-establish the ecosystems needed to support life over time, and after 40 days there would be nothing for the herbivores to eat, particularly the specialists, whether the water was salty, fresh, or in-between. There would also be evidence at the same time of a massive disruption of ocean life - but there isn't.

If God miraculously brought forth mature vegetation and all the other creatures necessary for the various ecosystems so that they survived, there would still be clear evidence of an extreme genetic bottleneck at the same period in every species on Earth, and clear evidence of the migration of all those species from their point of disembarkation (assuming it was somehow possible for them to get back to their appropriate lands and environments) - but there isn't.

 

[Ophiolite]

The suggestion that all life died - apart some animals on a boat - is unworkable. There is no evidence of anything approaching such extinction in the relevant period. It would take far more than the animals on the ark to re-establish the ecosystems needed to support life over time, and after 40 days there would be nothing for the herbivores to eat, particularly the specialists, whether the water was salty, fresh, or in-between. There would also be evidence at the same time of a massive disruption of ocean life - but there isn't.

If God miraculously brought forth mature vegetation and all the other creatures necessary for the various ecosystems so that they survived, there would still be clear evidence of an extreme genetic bottleneck at the same period in every species on Earth, and clear evidence of the migration of all those species from their point of disembarkation (assuming it was somehow possible for them to get back to their appropriate lands and environments) - but there isn't.

Sadly, logical argument and abundant, verified evidence are no match for blind self-delusion.