Time for a Lewis update!

California Tim · Feb 25, 2005

shernren said:
Oops. A fuse blew in my brains processing that. Some de-scientification please?

Sure. Evidence in the Grand Canyon suggests that much of the layers (strata) visible which have long been held by evolutionists as proof of an old earth, were actually deposited while under at least 200 meters of water (deep water deposition). The significance of this, if verified, is that it implies that the Biblical account of the worldwide flood was a literal, worldwide event. Of course if that were ever admitted by secular scientists, all the calculations used to determine the age of various strata layer and fossils contained within them is thrown out the window - and the possibility of proving a young earth is scientifically possible given the reanalyzation of the available evidence in light of this data.

notto · Feb 25, 2005

California Tim said:
Sure. Evidence in the Grand Canyon suggests that much of the layers (strata) visible which have long been held by evolutionists as proof of an old earth, were actually deposited while under at least 200 meters of water (deep water deposition). The significance of this, if verified, is that it implies that the Biblical account of the worldwide flood was a literal, worldwide event. Of course if that were ever admitted by secular scientists, all the calculations used to determine the age of various strata layer and fossils contained within them is thrown out the window - and the possibility of proving a young earth is scientifically possible given the reanalyzation of the available evidence in light of this data.

So because the area where some layers of the grand canyon (not all) were deposited under water , that means that a worldwide flood is true?

That's like saying because we have lakes and oceans now, the worldwide flood is true. Hasty conclusion to support what you want to be true.

Does understanding that glaciation made certain geology features mean that at one point the earth was entirely under ice?

Does showing that an area that was once desert is not mean that at one point the entire world was under sand?

Silly conclusions to make, aren't they.

California Tim · Feb 25, 2005

notto said:
So because the area where some layers of the grand canyon (not all) were deposited under water , that means that a worldwide flood is true?

That's like saying because we have lakes and oceans now, the worldwide flood is true. Hasty conclusion to support what you want to be true.

Does understanding that glaciation made certain geology features mean that at one point the earth was entirely under ice?

Does showing that an area that was once desert is not mean that at one point the entire world was under sand?

Silly conclusions to make, aren't they.

I had typed half a paragraph, but realized I'm no longer in the mood to speak for others. I will simply accept the fact that you personally do not find this information compelling and leave it at that.

Vance · Feb 25, 2005

What is most important, though, is that the ONLY people who find it compelling are those who ALREADY have a belief in a young earth and are looking for supporting evidence.

shernren · Feb 27, 2005

And just what would the flood prove anyway? I could believe in the flood and still be a TE, IMHO.

notto · Feb 27, 2005

California Tim said:
I had typed half a paragraph, but realized I'm no longer in the mood to speak for others. I will simply accept the fact that you personally do not find this information compelling and leave it at that.

I tend to side with geologists and other scientists who have studied the creation close up in such matters.

Those early geologists who accepted a worldwide flood found the evidence lacking when they went looking for it. They just couldn't find convincing evidence for a world wide flood. Today's geologists have found specific pieces of evidence that falsify a world wide flood. There are things that exist in the fossil record that simply could not exist if it was the result of a world wide flood.

shernren · Feb 27, 2005

There are things that exist in the fossil record that simply could not exist if it was the result of a world wide flood.

like?

Vance · Feb 27, 2005

shernren said:
like?

If there was a world wide flood as recently as 10,000 years ago, we would not see the uniform stratification of the same extinct species in different areas in the same levels, for one thing. All attempts by YEC geologists to explain the stratification of the fossil record have been painfully inadequate.

notto · Feb 28, 2005

shernren said:
like?

footprints of terrestrial animals in the layers
fossilized beehives and termite mounds in place with no sign of damage from a flood
fossilized raindrop markings
fossilzed dung of all types in place with no sign of damage from a flood
eroded riverbeds in rock, buried by more sediment
entire forests of trees rooted in soil, stacked one on top of the other
fossilzed dinosaur egg nests still arranged perfectly in a circle
footprints of dinosaurs on top of coal seams covered by more sediment

There are more, but this is just a sampling.

gluadys · Feb 28, 2005

shernren said:
And just what would the flood prove anyway? I could believe in the flood and still be a TE, IMHO.

I suggest TE is incompatible with a geologically falsified flood.

Vance · Feb 28, 2005

A local flood, though, from which the story developed (as guided or used by God), could be believed by a TE.

shernren · Mar 1, 2005

if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)... (2 Peter 2:5-8)

From what I see, the flood is put on the same level of historical veracity as the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the rescue of Lot from that. Comments?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Mar 1, 2005

shernren said:
From what I see, the flood is put on the same level of historical veracity as the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the rescue of Lot from that. Comments?

Why does drawing illustrations from two things in the same paragraph put them on a level of equal historicity?

If I say that weight training will build up your muscles, so you look like Geoff Capes or Hercules, does that imply I think that Hercules was a real person?

Vance · Apr 14, 2005

What is odd is that Fundamentalists often forget even modern language usage when they turn to Scripture, much less consider the usage styles of 4,000 years ago.

Time for a Lewis update!

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Contributor

you are not reading this.

Legend

you are not reading this.

Contributor

Legend

Legend

Contributor

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency