Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thanks. This is a pretty key point that needs to be highlighted.For instance, a truly global flood would leave a telltale layer of sedimen, which would be of uniform age and have a global distribution. If no such layer can be discovered, then that's strong evidence against such an event having occurred.
Or so you believe, like I did.Here's my example again:
What if I told you our family diary says my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad.
Then, years later, you find me searching for my great-grandfather's name in the B & O personnel files?
Furthermore, what if I don't find his file, because it was removed for some reason the day he retired?
In my example, my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad, whose file was removed.
The diary is correct.
But in your example, the story is wrong from the git-go.
AND presenting that the God of Love is a mass killer.
Note btw that there’s not merely no positive evidence but also many lines of inquiry that provide disproof of any global flood.
Or so you believe, like I did.
The Word of God was transcribed by Man but dictated by God through His Holy Spirit.The Word of God, as written and dictated by fallible and unknowing mortal men.
I have yet to see anything that contradicts what the Word of God claims.God's actual creation on the other hand shows your claim to not be that at all.
All things exist by the miracle of God - of course - that is the explanation.Miracles explain everything and thus they explain nothing.
That's a given - but why? What exactly do you disagree with?Hard disagree.
Obviously - and not conducive to a conversation. Mind sharing why?Very hard disagree.
That is very confusing, because you earlier claimed that you "Very hard disagree[d]" with my claim that the Holy Spirit was a sure witness and we can come to know for ourselves.This is really the only bit I'll agree on.
I never claimed that any Laws - let alone those of Physics - were "changed". Strawman.That doesn't even enter into the same universe as explaining how "the fall" changed the laws of physics.
We can only detect and measure things of the same order as ourselves - those celestial bodies that are in a Fallen State.Which one is the distant galaxy in? (And I thought the beginning of our universe was one of those points you guys claimed as matching your text to our reality.)
Not now - always - and I never claimed otherwise.So now the laws (and that would include physics) are unchanging.
That was your strawman you are referring to.How does this match with changing the laws or constants of physics. (You can't even be constant within a single post.)
Is this an attempt at another strawman or did you really not get it?Seriously, this is embarrassingly misinformed. If you had ever seen it in the sky you would not call it "floating".
It would have everything to do with the world you live in if it is true.I don't care. THat's just your theology. Got nothing to do with the world I live in.
No - Mercy cannot rob Justice its due. That would be Unlawful.Yes. That is the point of mercy.
How does it not make sense?This makes no sense at all (and neither does you capitalization, only "Earth" should be capitalized inside these sentences).
You can read more about it in the Genesis account.Raw, unevidenced assertion.
I see no reason to assume that everything was the same.And so is this.
Glorification is done by portraying the event as true. If it is said that we are glorifying, then the glorification itself is canceled. So, when the people said it was a huge flood, that glorified the flood story. And the story is essentially correct. The only thing is that glorifying it as a global flood is incorrect.Global, mot possible.
You assume the story is based in actual events., where Id say
its possible that some local,flood was “glorified”.
But thatv loops back to what I said, that nothing in the story
is true.
So then, of what use is such a story?
Okay, Thank you.As I said though: many people who espouse a global flood story don't care for the original historical Hebrew. They see the English text as it and take it at face value
Let's see if that is actually the case...I never claimed that any Laws - let alone those of Physics - were "changed". Strawman.
If you change how things are measured, how is that not changing the laws of physics?I claimed that I did not know how the paradisaical state of the Earth and all things upon it would affect how we would measure those things today.
Which would definitely be changing the laws of physics. "no decay" just isn't how decay works.As an example - how would an unspecified period of Time where no decay existed on the planet affect our efforts to try to date things?
This makes no sense at all.We can only detect and measure things of the same order as ourselves - those celestial bodies that are in a Fallen State.
No, just other creationists.The Universe definitely had a beginning - in the sense that it was organized as such - but all the components are Eternal.
I don't think you should assume things about what I believe or try lumping me in with other Christians.
It is hard to get what you are saying. It bears little resemblance to the observed Universe. It suggests you have no idea what the underlying physical processes are, so I make no assumptions that you know them.Not now - always - and I never claimed otherwise.
That was your strawman you are referring to.
Is this an attempt at another strawman or did you really not get it?
I have no idea what your point is.I claimed that to those who do not understand or who are unaware - it would appear to be "floating".
You may take issue with the word I chose - I felt that it was appropriate to describe something that continuously falls toward the Earth without actually hitting it - but that does not really affect the point that I made.
Are you aware of the laws of physics? (You seem to think they can change, which is not good awareness.)My point was that no Laws of Physics were violated in regard to people getting the International Space Station into a Low Earth Orbit - even if it appears to defy the Laws of Physics by those who do not understand or who are not aware of them.
And yet that cannot be demonstrated.God always operates according to Law - and we do not know all the Laws - which is why we attribute the term "miracle" to them.
It would have everything to do with the world you live in if it is true.
Huh? Unlawful?No - Mercy cannot rob Justice its due. That would be Unlawful.
That's not how capitalization works in English. Only proper nouns (like English) and the first word of a sentence are capitalized. ("law" and "Unlawful" are among the words you recently capitalized that are not proper nouns. (Unlawful isn't a noun at all.)How does it not make sense?
I capitalize certain words so that you know that they have special meaning.
No, your writing is choppy and fails to communicate your ideas well.You seem to get distracted very easily.
You make claims about changing laws of physics with out evidence and I already told you that we have measurements of distant (old) galaxies that demonstrate that the laws of the Universe have not changed.You can read more about it in the Genesis account.
I see no reason to assume that everything was the same.
Why do you believe that?
The Word of God was transcribed by Man but dictated by God through His Holy Spirit.
If God reveals truth to a man - how can you claim that he is "unknowing"?
I have yet to see anything that contradicts what the Word of God claims.
Are you relying on "fallible and unknowing moral men" as the basis of your claim?
All things exist by the miracle of God - of course - that is the explanation.
If you believe that you are entitled to an explanation - why not go to God and His Word and find it?
That's a given - but why? What exactly do you disagree with?
Obviously - and not conducive to a conversation. Mind sharing why?
That is very confusing, because you earlier claimed that you "Very hard disagree[d]" with my claim that the Holy Spirit was a sure witness and we can come to know for ourselves.
Yet now you claim to agree that the Holy Spirit is how we come to know about God.
Does the Holy Spirit confirm truth or not?
Are failible and unknowing, or, infallible?The Word of God was transcribed by Man but dictated by God through His Holy Spirit.
If God reveals truth to a man - how can you claim that he is "unknowing"?
I have yet to see anything that contradicts what the Word of God claims.
Are you relying on "fallible and unknowing moral men" as the basis of your claim?
All things exist by the miracle of God - of course - that is the explanation.
If you believe that you are entitled to an explanation - why not go to God and His Word and find it?
That's a given - but why? What exactly do you disagree with?
Obviously - and not conducive to a conversation. Mind sharing why?
That is very confusing, because you earlier claimed that you "Very hard disagree[d]" with my claim that the Holy Spirit was a sure witness and we can come to know for ourselves.
Yet now you claim to agree that the Holy Spirit is how we come to know about God.
Does the Holy Spirit confirm truth or not?
Your syntax is a bit confusing, but your main point is “ …essentially correct”.Glorification is done by portraying the event as true. If it is said that we are glorifying, then the glorification itself is canceled. So, when the people said it was a huge flood, that glorified the flood story. And the story is essentially correct. The only thing is that glorifying it as a global flood is incorrect.
From four men , you get four races.
This ripples throughout the bloodlines.
Coincidence? Hardly.
Because God's own creation does not conform to what God supposedly dictated.
Are failible and unknowing, or, infallible?
You seem awful sure of yourself.
'FIZZICS' CAN TAKE A HIKESuch as when the laws of combustion didn't conform to Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego?
That tells you that the Flood was just a local flood?
Such as when the laws of combustion didn't conform to Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego?
That tells you that the Flood was just a local flood?
I believe everyone has.Actually, I sometimes do. I've learned quite a lot from videos others have posted.
Are you saying that I do not or cannot read, and haven't done so, and so I need to watch videos you post?But also I was hoping that you actually and honestly wanted to learn something about both the dating of the Ice Age Floods as well as the dating of the end of the Ice Age itself.
If it takes one and a half hours to show how "real" geologists work, I don't think the video is worth anyone's time, because in less than half an hour, one can read how geologists work on ice, and will learn not only what is involved, but why, and how such models/theories and their timing are interpreted.Than there's the video itself where a person can learn how real geologist work rather than the pseudo-geologist that one finds in AIG.
Thank you for that.So to give a quick answer. It was ash from Mt. St. Helen of an eruption that happened 16,300 years ago found between layers of sediment that helped with dating. Also the ash from Glacier Peak in Washington which has been dated to 16,000 years ago has also been found between layers. Then we have a location where a stick buried in one of the layers dated to 14,900 years ago. And then we have the surface exposure dating (geochronological) techniques that estimate the length of time an erratic s have been exposed to the rays of the sun. Some erratic's have been dated to as young as 10,000 years ago since being dopped by the floods using this technique. And because there were many floods, other erratics have been dated as old as 20,000 year ago sitting in the sun after deposited by the floods. And other erratics fall inbetween those two dates. This is all explained in detail in the video.
This article refers to calibration with historical timelines, it is not about things that occurred 5000 or 10000 years before anything was written down.So, we are back to something we don't want to ignore.
This is the same as the one before. Here's one juicy quote "By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years."One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result.
The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.
A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history.
Where are you seeing any claims of dating flood deposits in the PNW based on molluscs?
Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells
Evidence is presented to show that modern mollusk shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages, owing mainly to incorporation of inactive (carbon-14-deficient) carbon from humus, probably through the food web, as well as by the pathway of carbon dioxide from humus decay. The resultant effect, in addition to the variable contributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fermentative carbon dioxide from bottom muds, and, locally, of carbonate carbon from dissolving limestones, makes the initial carbon-14 activity of ancient fresh-water shell indeterminate, but within limits. Consequent errors of shell radiocarbon dates may be as large as several thousand years for river shells.
We talking about the same thing - Radiocarbon Dating?This article refers to calibration with historical timelines, it is not about things that occurred 5000 or 10000 years before anything was written down.
This is the same as the one before. Here's one juicy quote "By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years."
They're worried they can't date things to 20 year accuracy, no one claims to know when a particular boulder was deposited by a glacial flood by that level of precision. (Again it is thousands of years earlier than the period of "low accuracy" being questioned here.)
Global warming *might* mess with our ability to date things from the industrial age, confusing them with 2000 year old things. This has no impact on ancient things at all.
Where are you seeing any claims of dating flood deposits in the PNW based on molluscs?
Most of these are irrelevant to the dating of the ice age floods and the only one that is even close (molluscs) is a WELL KNOWN ISSUE. No competent geologist is going to take a raw date from a deposit of mollusc shells and use it to date something directly. (Perhaps, since it give overly old ages, it could be used to define an upper limit if no other material was available to date.)
As for your general "complaining" about the broad nature of the dates, these are not a single event but many occurring over a couple thousand years. Different individual floods inundated different parts of the region, etc. A variety of dates should be present even if every flood deposit could be dated to 100 year accuracy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?