why we do not believe secular scientists

[archaeologist]

here is the latest article about a discovery which reminds me very much like the biblical account, only the words and dates are changed to fit their comfortable beliefs.

i have said this before, not here, that secular scientists discover much evidence to prove the Bible true but they attribute their discoveries to something else.

that aloneis reason not to accept their thinking as they do not lead to God but away from Him:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...loodcreatedgreatdividebetweenbritainandfrance

The cultural rift between Britain and France endures as an amusing mystery for many, but the physical divide between them can now be blamed on two ancient floods.

About 450,000 years ago, a "megaflood" breached a giant natural dam near the Dover strait and began the formation of the English Channel , according to a study detailed in the July 19 issue of the journal Nature. Following this first disastrous flood, a second deluge finished the job.

why not justcome out and say it---it was the result of Noah's flood.

 

[KerrMetric]

I bet you believe them when it comes to the ABS brakes on your car or the LCD display on your laptop etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

[notto]

why not justcome out and say it---it was the result of Noah's flood.

Because the evidence does not support it.

If you actually understood the geology of the area this flood supposedly carved through you would understand that the typical creationist explanation for it is that it was created when the flood receded.

The evidence for this flood is dependent on the chalk already being in place. The chalk was responsible for creating the basin.

Prior to the first megaflood, which originated from an enormous lake of freshwater in what is now the North Sea, a quaint river valley was the only waterway obstructing France and Britain. Inattentive to building materials, nature contained the monstrous, ice-locked lake with chalky stone.

Where did this chalky stone come from?

When the 19-mile-wide barrier failed, the deluge that followed carved an impressive basin 33 feet deep and almost 31 miles wide in a matter of weeks.

31 miles != worldwide.
33 feet deep != over the mountaintops.

How is this any comparison to the flood described in the Bible?

The scope of the flood in the article is easily identified based on already existing strata of sedimentary deposits that had already turned into solid rock.

The rock these floods supposedly cut through (after it was already rock) was supposedly laid down by sediment by the flood.

You are putting the cart before the horse (and the rock before the sediment).

Now, can you see why this doesn't fit the evidence creationists previously cite for a worldwide flood?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not to mention that 4,000 != 450,000 -- off by two orders of magnitude.

 

[USincognito]

Let's see. A local megaflood, resulting from a natural dam bursting, lasting weeks, 450,000 years ago and...

here is the latest article about a discovery which reminds me very much like the biblical account, only the words and dates are changed to fit their comfortable beliefs.

Have you no sense of irony?

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

Following this first disastrous flood, a second deluge finished the job.

Noah flood is one, article flood is two!

And God say not doing again, and God is never lying!

Koko never lying too, and Koko never making flood!

 

[billwald]

While back I was on a list of mostly OPC Reconstructionists. They refused to "believe" anything not confirmed by a "real Christian" scientist. It was impossible to communicate with them.

 

[Dannager]

You believe secular scientists all the time, archaeologist. You just choose not to believe them on the few occasions where you don't like what they have to say, because what they have to say makes you very, very uncomfortable.

 

[archaeologist]

amazing. none of you see it...it is a prime example why God said not to listen to the world's ways. they do not give God the glory but look to replace Him with their own solutions.

 

[USincognito]

amazing. none of you see it...it is a prime example why God said not to listen to the world's ways. they do not give God the glory but look to replace Him with their own solutions.

Which does nothing to explain how a regional megaflood caused by a lake dam breaking 450,000 years ago = a worldwide flood, caused by 40 days and 40 nights of rain 4,000 years ago.

 

[Dannager]

amazing. none of you see it...it is a prime example why God said not to listen to the world's ways. they do not give God the glory but look to replace Him with their own solutions.

I especially like how you avoided addressing any of the criticism leveled at your position.

 

[notto]

amazing. none of you see it...it is a prime example why God said not to listen to the world's ways. they do not give God the glory but look to replace Him with their own solutions.

So the chalk doesn't exist?

That's your response?

You are a great creationist.

You just ignored evidence that is used by creationists that demonstrate this was not the flood of noah.

You just ignored your own source.

 

[archaeologist]

another reason. if you look at the picture, how could anyone imagine that that was a missing link? it was half a skeleton.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060405_tiktaalikfrm.htm

secular scientists do a lot of infering and base their conclusions on artist's renditions eventhough no one involved saw the fish as they depict it.

i wouldn't believe that fish story even if it came from a one armed fisherman.

I especially like how you avoided addressing any of the criticism leveled at your position.

it is typical denial and acceptance of the secular world over God's word, why would i waste my time?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Well, as someone else said somewhere else - I am glad it happened.

Had it not, I would have been born French!

 

[notto]

another reason. if you look at the picture, how could anyone imagine that that was a missing link? it was half a skeleton.

Suggesting that the analysis was done by just looking at the picture or based on an artists rendering is a gross misrepresentation of the work done.

You are making claims about the find and the about the scientists conclusions. Do you have any support for them other than your ill informed statements?

Have you read the original papers that you are criticizing? What do you take issue with and why?

More unsupported assertions.

(Your 'it as half a skeleton' indicates that you also didn't read your own article carefully - Well-preserved fossils from several specimens indicated a length from 4 to 9 feet long. )

You're on a roll!

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Archie - again I pose the question: what is "secular science"?

 

[shernren]

Whoa. Mega bait-and-switch here. I thought we were talking about chalk and the Great Flood, eh archie? =)

 

[USincognito]

Whoa. Mega bait-and-switch here. I thought we were talking about chalk and the Great Flood, eh archie? =)

Not that it isn't a typical Creationist MO, but since Tiktaalik was found in Canada and the flood cited in the OP occurred in Northeastern Europe, wouldn't this tangent be literally considered a misdirection?

Or should I add geography to the ever growing list of subjects with with Archie is increasingly obviously utterly unfamiliar with?

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

another reason. if you look at the picture, how could anyone imagine that that was a missing link? it was half a skeleton.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060405_tiktaalikfrm.htm

Koko want to tasting!

it is typical denial and acceptance of the secular world over God's word, why would i waste my time?

Koko want to reading!

 

[Assyrian]

No Koko not tasting! No!

Past sell by date! Best before 375 million BC.

Koko have banana instead.

[move]

[/move]