Where's the water?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
Arnie Manitoba said:
Correct , in our Canadian arctic permafrost we have found frozen-in-place Mammoths with partly chewed buttercup flowers in their mouths

It is like they were fast frozen standing on their feet

To this day scientists dont know how it could have happened so fast

It is like God used liquid nitrogen to fast freeze them

He invented liquid nitrogen , so I guess he can use it whenever he wants

Some scientists think they invented liquid nitrogen but all they did was discover it.
Thank you for your response again!

Wowww!!! I had no idea, great on the mammoth and flowers! When I was in the engineering field long ago, use to use dewars with liquid nitrogen - cooled down the electronics (gold and silver circuitry) for conductivity experiments - cooled it down instantly. Wish God would have invented more oxygen in the nitrogen air we breath - old age thing - need more oxygen or something?

Old in need Jack,

Thank you again!
 

UppsalaDragby

New Member
Feb 6, 2012
543
40
0
River Jordan said:
If you take water from its lowest point and move it, it tends to return back to its lowest point. As I explained, if you try and use the water described in the OP to flood the surface of the earth, the space that the water took up either has to be replaced by something else, or the water will just run right back to its original location.
Which proves what, exactly???

What you guys are trying to do here is cover a cobblestone on a plate with only the water on the plate, even though every time you try and move the water over the rock, it just runs right back down to the plate.
You are the only one using that kind of analogy, possibly because it is totally warped. The earth is not a cobblestone that someone poured water on top of. The earth can expel water as well as absorb it WITHOUT the water returning to exactly the same location. Your argument is nothing more than desparate.

It is extremely good evidence against flood geology. Entire professional fields who have no allegiance one way or the other to any particular model, never, ever, ever use Biblical flood geology to discover and explore new sources of energy. Never. Instead they specifically use standard, mainstream, old earth, non-Biblical flood geology. If creationists truly think their model is better, why aren't they presenting them to these companies?
Really, you seem to be an expert in that particular field. So tell me, where is your evidence that they are adhering to an old earth model rather than a young earth one, and that it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model.

You also have completely failed to demonstrate how scientists interpretation of the natural world is equivalent to "God's revelation".

Are you avioding the question?

Because you can't significantly change the topology without necessary consequences, the main one being the generation of enough heat to boil off the oceans and atmosphere. Even some YEC's admit that.
We can't even agree on the physics involved in determining weather conditions prevailing today, and yet you seem to think that you have a "waterproof" argument against a flood that occurred thousands of years ago. Let me ask you, are these YEC's agreeing that a global flood was impossible? Who are they?

The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the Hebrew flood story. And if you want to argue that the Babylonian story is the historical one, I suggest you read it first.
It's funny how many atheistic and anti-biblical arguments you use and then just whine whenever anyone questions your faith.

To start with, there is absolutely NO conclusive evidence that the epic of Gilgamesh predates the Hebrew flood story, so right there you are trying to act like you are an authority on a subject that you obviously are not. What we DO know is that the PHYSICAL evidence of the Gilgamesh account, engraved on STONE, predates the PHYSICAL evidence of the Genesis acount, written on PARCHMENT! So right there you argument fails.

But even if we suppose that it did predate the Genesis accout, it still doesn't address my point. A tale that includes mythical accounts does not prevent it from containing a historical event. Contradictory assertions are welcome.

So yes or no...do you believe the Biblical flood is explainable in purely natural terms?
No, which is why I gave you the two points that I did. So what's your point? Does God's intervention mean that either of my points fail? I don't think it does.

How do you know what the scientific evidence is or isn't? Have you studied the science behind it? If so, what did you study? Because when I look through the scientific literature, go to conferences, talk to scientists, and do field work, I don't see any indication at all that your claim is correct. In fact, I see the exact opposite.
So maybe you can help me out here. If the scientific evidence is against me, as you say, can you please cite a scientific source for this claim?
Haha.. nice, but very pale try River. Here is my challenge to you, and it will be very interesting to see if you can meet it. Show me the "scientific" evidence that you have come across in your famous studies that refutes any of the following:

1. We have a planet covered in sediments.

2. fossils scattered all over the planet including on all the highest mountains ranges around the globe.

3. HUGE oil deposits exist.

4. HUGE deposits of coal exist.

5. fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures that indicate drowning exist.

6. accounts given by ancient cultures describe a flood.

These were the "claims" that I presented. Your respoinse was: "I don't see any indication at all that your claim is correct

So where are your counter-arguments... based on science?

How many of the 6 claims listed above do you deny????

I have also asked you on several occasions to explain why you think the beliefs of the scientific community are a better judge of what happened BEYOND what is testable, repeatable and observable than the biblical account. Unfortunately you have never provided a response to that question, other than ASSUME that it is so.. Not good my friend, not good...

All you have on your plate is the tiresome "well, most scientists believe it so why don't you?" kind of garbage...

Now let's take a look at what your claims are:

"The Biblical global flood as presented by creationists is not only not supported by the evidence, it is directly contradicted by it on a number of levels (geology, paleontology, biology, genetics)."

So rather than just dancing around pretending to be the voice of science, let's see how many of these claims YOU can defend. Where is the scientific evicence from:

1. Geology

2. Palentology

3. Biology, and

4. Genetics

.. that disprove a global flood?
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, you are mistaken. The Biblical global flood as presented by creationists is not only not supported by the evidence, it is directly contradicted by it on a number of levels (geology, paleontology, biology, genetics). I know it's convenient to explain the fact that the consensus among scientists is against the flood via some sort of conspiracy and/or anti-God agenda, but that's just intellectually lazy IMO. Reality is much, much more basic. And by going around making the sorts of ridiculous arguments like we've seen in this thread (vapor canopies, jet setting continental plates) under the banner of Christianity, we're unnecessarily giving our faith a bad reputation.
Yes, and the bodily resurrection of the dead is not supported by science and is directly contradicted by biology and medicine. So, I am failing to see the distinction you are making here between why one is believable and the other holds Christians up to be mocked and derided for their foolishness.

I never said the consensus among scientists is a conspiracy. You should stop asserting things about my position in order to add credence your own. I would appreciate if you would give me the same respect of asking questions about my view rather than making assumptions about it as I have done with you. You seem to have a very rigid view of "fundamentalism" and want to lump everyone in that category that takes a more "literal" approach to any given text than you.

I guess it gets back to the fundamental question of where you derive your faith. I've come to realize that fundamentalists get much of their faith from a very strict reading of the Bible, where if you take even one bit of it away, it all collapses. Other Christians derive their faith from prayer, fellowship, and a daily walk with Christ. So if the Hebrews borrowed the flood story from the Babylonians, that doesn't affect my faith one bit, whereas with fundamentalists it could be devastating.
I find this statement puzzling. How do you determine who Christ is apart from Biblical revelation? How do you know the character and nature of the God you are praying to apart from what is revealed? My point is that all of our "walks" are based on what is revealed to us in Scripture which acts as a foundation for our prayer life, fellowship and relationship with Christ. You cannot divorce one from the other. Your statement makes it sound as if prayer, fellowship and relationship with Christ is entirely independent on how one reads and interprets the Scriptures.

I understand that you are comfortable with the Bible being laced with mythology and that many of the stories exist to make a point and there does not need to be any correspondence to reality with them. I guess my question is how do you determine which ones are myth and which ones are a "fundamental tenant" of the faith? Looking at your arguments, it seems that these lines are drawn based on what is accepted by the scientific community. If not, could you explain to me the basics of your hermeneutics? Please understand, I am not being sarcastic or condescending here. I really want to know your rationale for how you make such distinctions in determining how the various stories of the Bible should be interpreted.

How do you know what is or isn't scientifically absurd? Do you regularly read exobiology papers in journals or something?
I have read and seen plenty of information in this regard. Are you suggesting that the alignment of amino acid chains which developed into proteins which then spontaneously formed into living single-celled organisms is not mathematically astounding (and scientifically impossible in an oxygen-rich atmosphere)? It is the scientifically accepted hypothesis because it is science must seek natural causes for everything, not because this hypothesis is scientifically repeatable or mathematically plausible. In fact, it has been shown to be so impossible (it cannot even be accomplished in a lab with scientists manipulating the presence of oxygen, etc.) that it has led some scientists to argue that life formed in another atmosphere and was seeded here by aliens.

If you are implying that one has to have a scientific degree to be able to participate in such discussions, I would take issue with that. This would be similar to me saying that you cannot have a theological discussion with me if you do not read theological journals or have advanced seminary degrees. Clearly this is not the case.


There's a difference between being laughed at over a fundamental tenet of your faith, and being laughed at unnecessarily. Even if you believe in a global flood, there's no reason to propose and defend things like vapor canopies and jet setting continental plates.
Yes, well everyone makes hypotheses about how things started based on their underlying presuppositions. I think it is a noble thing to try to understand the world around us based on the revelation of Scripture, even if at times those who have convictions about the Scriptures are in error (either about their understanding of the text or errantly making scientific applications that are outside the scope of the text itself). I don't think God will look down on those who sought to be faithful to his Word to the best of their ability and perhaps were scientifically inaccurate as a result. It seems these Christians are doing the very thing you seem to be arguing for: trying to square our known reality with God's revelation. I don't know of any young earth creationist that absolutely demands vapor canopies to be accepted as a core tenant of the faith. They are simply theories to try to understand both the state of the earth as we see it presently and what we have discovered through archeology. Dragonflies with three foot wing spans certainly point to a very different biosphere. If creationists want to use such findings as explanations for long human life, giants and so forth as presented in the Bible, I have no problem with it. Obviously they are not crucial for my faith, but I do believe someone has to have a sound approach to hermeneutics. I think it makes Christians even more subject to ridicule if they restructure their hermeneutics based on every cultural trend and scientific claim. I find most hermeneutics today center much more on embracing cultural trends than any serious effort to understand the historical context of the text itself and the actual intent of the author.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
UppsalaDragby said:
Which proves what, exactly???
That when you take water from a low point and move it to a higher point, it moves back to the low point.

You are the only one using that kind of analogy, possibly because it is totally warped. The earth is not a cobblestone that someone poured water on top of. The earth can expel water as well as absorb it WITHOUT the water returning to exactly the same location.
Pay closer attention. The analogy is using water from a dinner plate to try and cover the cobblestone that is sitting on the plate. You can't do it for the very simple reason that whenever you try and move the water over the stone, the water just runs right back down to its low point (the plate).

Really, you seem to be an expert in that particular field. So tell me, where is your evidence that they are adhering to an old earth model rather than a young earth one, and that it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model.
No, I'm not an expert in geology. But I have several friends who are, and three of them now work for oil companies. Not one of them uses young-earth flood geology in their work. Also, Christian geologist Glen Morton used to be a young-earth creationist, but as he started to work in the oil industry he noticed that they were all using old-earth, non-flood geology as their framework for finding new sources of oil. Then he asked all his YEC colleagues who were working for oil companies if they were using anything from YEC in their work. He describes the results...

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him."

Now, if you're going to make the positive claim that oil companies actually do use YEC, flood geology in their work, then please provide supportive evidence.

You also have completely failed to demonstrate how scientists interpretation of the natural world is equivalent to "God's revelation".
That's a silly question. That's like saying "Is human interpretation of ancient Hebrew scrolls equivalent to God's revelation?" If you're going to use "it has to be interpreted by humans" as an excuse to dismiss something as God's revelation, then you have to apply that standard consistently, which means you must also dismiss scripture on the same grounds.

We can't even agree on the physics involved in determining weather conditions prevailing today, and yet you seem to think that you have a "waterproof" argument against a flood that occurred thousands of years ago. Let me ask you, are these YEC's agreeing that a global flood was impossible? Who are they?
Creationists who claim that continental plates moved long distances in very short times (to alter the topology of the earth as you stated) have to account for the necessary consequences. Specifically, moving that much mass requires ridiculous amounts of energy, most of which is given off as heat. YEC John Baumgardner estimated (in his "runaway subduction" model) about 1028 joules just from the subduction in his model. That's more than enough to boil off the oceans.

It's funny how many atheistic and anti-biblical arguments you use and then just whine whenever anyone questions your faith.
Yeah, I hear those atheists believe in a spherical earth too!! :eek:

To start with, there is absolutely NO conclusive evidence that the epic of Gilgamesh predates the Hebrew flood story, so right there you are trying to act like you are an authority on a subject that you obviously are not. What we DO know is that the PHYSICAL evidence of the Gilgamesh account, engraved on STONE, predates the PHYSICAL evidence of the Genesis acount, written on PARCHMENT! So right there you argument fails.
????????? You just described the evidence that supports the idea that the EoG pre-dates the Hebrew story. Thus, there is an evidential basis for the idea. If you have actual evidence for the idea that the Hebrew story pre-dates the EoG, then present it. If you don't, then what I've presented is the most consistent with the evidence.

No, which is why I gave you the two points that I did. So what's your point? Does God's intervention mean that either of my points fail? I don't think it does.
Then there's no need to debate whether this flood is possible or supported by the data. Whenever you encounter an impossibility or contrary data, you can just invoke a miracle. And that of course takes us completely out of the realm of "scientifically supported".

Haha.. nice, but very pale try River. Here is my challenge to you, and it will be very interesting to see if you can meet it. Show me the "scientific" evidence that you have come across in your famous studies that refutes any of the following:
Nope, sorry, I'm not playing this game where you ignore the questions I asked you first and then demand I answer your subsequent questions. You claimed, "The scientific evidence leans heavily against [me]". I'm asking, how do you know what the scientific evidence is or isn't? Why should anyone take your unsubstantiated assertion about what the science is at all seriously?

I have also asked you on several occasions to explain why you think the beliefs of the scientific community are a better judge of what happened BEYOND what is testable, repeatable and observable than the biblical account. Unfortunately you have never provided a response to that question, other than ASSUME that it is so.. Not good my friend, not good...
It's very funny how you describe scientific knowledge as "beliefs". I have outlined in this thread very specific reasons why these young-earth flood geology arguments are not just wrong, but ridiculously wrong.

All you have on your plate is the tiresome "well, most scientists believe it so why don't you?" kind of garbage...
Then you need to look through this thread again (or for the first time).

Now let's take a look at what your claims are:

"The Biblical global flood as presented by creationists is not only not supported by the evidence, it is directly contradicted by it on a number of levels (geology, paleontology, biology, genetics)."

So rather than just dancing around pretending to be the voice of science, let's see how many of these claims YOU can defend. Where is the scientific evicence from:

1. Geology

2. Palentology

3. Biology, and

4. Genetics

.. that disprove a global flood?
1. To avoid being accused of addressing a straw man, please identify for me which geologic strata are pre-flood, flood, and post-flood.

2. Can you please explain why the stratigraphic ordering of fossils is not consistent with a recent global flood? For example, why aren't elephants found alongside dinosaurs, pterosaurs with eagles, trilobites with crabs, ostriches with caudipteryx, Rodhocetus with dolphins, etc.?

3. Exactly what mechanism allows us to go from a single breeding pair for each "kind", to the number of species of each "kind" alive today within 4,000 years?

4. Given all the genomes that have been, and continue to be, sequenced, why do we never see any evidence of an extreme bottleneck/founder effect in all organisms that occurred at the same time?
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
The scientific "beliefs" on the origins of oil have all the components of Noah's worldwide flood , dead organic matter trapped in the silt under water , and at high pressure

Some quotes from secular science: ..... A so-called fossil fuel, petroleum is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.

"Even some of the dinosaurs may have gotten involved in some of this," says William Thomas, a geologists at the University of Kentucky.

In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.

Left alone, the kerogen molecules eventually crack, breaking up into shorter and lighter molecules composed almost solely of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Depending on how liquid or gaseous this mixture is, it will turn into either petroleum or natural gas.

So how long does this process take? Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.


Noahs flood produced all of those conditions period !!!! .... the only question is how long it took... the 200 or so days of Noahs flood may have been long enough
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Wormwood said:
Yes, and the bodily resurrection of the dead is not supported by science and is directly contradicted by biology and medicine. So, I am failing to see the distinction you are making here between why one is believable and the other holds Christians up to be mocked and derided for their foolishness.
Is anyone here trying to make the case that the resurrection was entirely natural and scientifically supported?

I never said the consensus among scientists is a conspiracy. You should stop asserting things about my position in order to add credence your own. I would appreciate if you would give me the same respect of asking questions about my view rather than making assumptions about it as I have done with you. You seem to have a very rigid view of "fundamentalism" and want to lump everyone in that category that takes a more "literal" approach to any given text than you.
I never said you did. I apologize if I gave you that impression.

I find this statement puzzling. How do you determine who Christ is apart from Biblical revelation? How do you know the character and nature of the God you are praying to apart from what is revealed? My point is that all of our "walks" are based on what is revealed to us in Scripture which acts as a foundation for our prayer life, fellowship and relationship with Christ. You cannot divorce one from the other. Your statement makes it sound as if prayer, fellowship and relationship with Christ is entirely independent on how one reads and interprets the Scriptures.
I didn't say it was one or the other. Of course scripture plays an important role in my faith, but it is not so overly important that if you take one part of it away (e.g., the flood) then my entire faith collapses. But several fundamentalists here have expressed exactly that line of reasoning.

I understand that you are comfortable with the Bible being laced with mythology and that many of the stories exist to make a point and there does not need to be any correspondence to reality with them. I guess my question is how do you determine which ones are myth and which ones are a "fundamental tenant" of the faith? Looking at your arguments, it seems that these lines are drawn based on what is accepted by the scientific community. If not, could you explain to me the basics of your hermeneutics? Please understand, I am not being sarcastic or condescending here. I really want to know your rationale for how you make such distinctions in determining how the various stories of the Bible should be interpreted.
I try and incorporate as much information as I can, and I try and remain as objective and intellectually honest as possible. Specific to the issue in this thread, if the data from the world around me doesn't support the Biblical flood, and I see lots of data that directly contradicts it, then I don't try and shoehorn it into my theology; I take it for what it is. And you're forgetting, I am a member of the scientific community. So in a lot of cases, I'm not just blindly taking someone's word.

Not only that, but when I look into creationists' arguments, I see repeated and consistent dishonesty. I've seen creationists do the most egregious things (like quote mining the work of scientists) and when confronted with it, refuse to admit what they've done. I've talked to people from creationist organizations and I personally find them very bizarre. Yet when I read the work of my fellow scientists and talk to them, I see much more objectivity and honesty.

It's like in the Nye-Ham deabate, where both were asked "What would change your mind". Nye answered "evidence" and Ham answered "nothing". To me, that was a very good illustration of the different modes of thinking between the two (and between me and fundamentalists).

I have read and seen plenty of information in this regard. Are you suggesting that the alignment of amino acid chains which developed into proteins which then spontaneously formed into living single-celled organisms is not mathematically astounding (and scientifically impossible in an oxygen-rich atmosphere)? It is the scientifically accepted hypothesis because it is science must seek natural causes for everything, not because this hypothesis is scientifically repeatable or mathematically plausible. In fact, it has been shown to be so impossible (it cannot even be accomplished in a lab with scientists manipulating the presence of oxygen, etc.) that it has led some scientists to argue that life formed in another atmosphere and was seeded here by aliens.
Could you be more specific on what you've read on exobiology?

Regarding your claim about the math, do you have specific calculations to support your argument?

If you are implying that one has to have a scientific degree to be able to participate in such discussions, I would take issue with that. This would be similar to me saying that you cannot have a theological discussion with me if you do not read theological journals or have advanced seminary degrees. Clearly this is not the case.
Not at all. I'm saying that if someone is going to go around declaring what the state of the science is in a particular subject, they probably should have at least studied that subject. But from what I've seen, creationists don't feel that same obligation.

Yes, well everyone makes hypotheses about how things started based on their underlying presuppositions. I think it is a noble thing to try to understand the world around us based on the revelation of Scripture, even if at times those who have convictions about the Scriptures are in error (either about their understanding of the text or errantly making scientific applications that are outside the scope of the text itself). I don't think God will look down on those who sought to be faithful to his Word to the best of their ability and perhaps were scientifically inaccurate as a result. It seems these Christians are doing the very thing you seem to be arguing for: trying to square our known reality with God's revelation. I don't know of any young earth creationist that absolutely demands vapor canopies to be accepted as a core tenant of the faith. They are simply theories to try to understand both the state of the earth as we see it presently and what we have discovered through archeology. Dragonflies with three foot wing spans certainly point to a very different biosphere. If creationists want to use such findings as explanations for long human life, giants and so forth as presented in the Bible, I have no problem with it. Obviously they are not crucial for my faith, but I do believe someone has to have a sound approach to hermeneutics. I think it makes Christians even more subject to ridicule if they restructure their hermeneutics based on every cultural trend and scientific claim. I find most hermeneutics today center much more on embracing cultural trends than any serious effort to understand the historical context of the text itself and the actual intent of the author.
But there's a difference between proposing something like a vapor canopy, having the problems with it shown to you, and either altering or abandoning the idea, and proposing it, having the problems shown, and ignoring them/waving them away and continuing to repeat the same errors. The former is understandable. The latter is simply dishonest.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Are you trying to imply that it is some kind of "absurd deconstructionist" view to say (per that article) that the argument has to cease that there is not enough water on earth to cover everything?

or

Are you keeping that statement to what people are doing with the bible?
The latter. I used deconstructionism in the broad sense a bit here, but it's applicable nonetheless.

Wormwood did a solid job of summing it up from a philosophical viewpoint, but I would submit that deconstructionism often results in anachronistically attributing characteristics to authors. In other words, you have a certain text that - for a hypothetical says - dogs are the best pets. I'm oversimplifying a bit here, but a deconstructionist might take the argument and dissect it to reach the conclusion that the author really hates dogs and loves cats as the best pet even though the stated point would be about dogs.

(A great literature-centric definition is here: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/decon-body.html)

I used to do it for fun because you could rhetorically paralyze any author's arguments by asserting ambivalence/ambiguity. Deconstructionism tends to focus on the vehicle and not the message itself, using literary constructs to draw this or that conclusion about what's being communicated.

A good bit of this is shrouded in the true myth language that you'll generally see associated with more liberal (and some conservative) scholarship.


It's not just that it is older. It is also that the appearance of the Hebrew story coincides with their captivity and emergence from Babylon, plus the specific similarities between the stories. There's a reason why it seems obvious that Spanish and Portugese are closer relatives than either is to Urdu.
And this would be again part of the circumstantial case, still carried by the ultimate assertion of age. IE: A newer similar text cannot be written before an older similar one.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Arnie Manitoba said:
The scientific "beliefs" on the origins of oil have all the components of Noah's worldwide flood , dead organic matter trapped in the silt under water , and at high pressure

Some quotes from secular science: ..... A so-called fossil fuel, petroleum is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.

"Even some of the dinosaurs may have gotten involved in some of this," says William Thomas, a geologists at the University of Kentucky.

In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.

Left alone, the kerogen molecules eventually crack, breaking up into shorter and lighter molecules composed almost solely of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Depending on how liquid or gaseous this mixture is, it will turn into either petroleum or natural gas.

So how long does this process take? Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.


Noahs flood produced all of those conditions period !!!! .... the only question is how long it took... the 200 or so days of Noahs flood may have been long enough
So the basic argument here is, "Oil exists, therefore the entire earth was flooded 4,000 years ago and everything on earth died except what was on an ark"? Ever heard of the fallacy of non sequitur? :lol:
HammerStone said:
And this would be again part of the circumstantial case, still carried by the ultimate assertion of age. IE: A newer similar text cannot be written before an older similar one.
It's very simple...the current evidence supports the idea that the Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the Hebrew flood story. If someone has evidence showing otherwise, then they should present it. Otherwise all people are doing is trying to hand-wave away inconvenient data.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And, just to clarify on my end, my caution is for Christians not to latch on to every scientific discovery (nor every supposed one for that matter) and find it in the Bible. The Bible contains a passage that speaks to a water cycle in one sense, but that doesn't mean that it delineates every step in an exacting, scientific way. (Just as an example.)
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
River Jordan said:
Is anyone here trying to make the case that the resurrection was entirely natural and scientifically supported?

It seems that you are intentionally avoiding the point. So let me ask you the question using your own words: "If the data in the world around [you] doesn't support [the resurrection], and you see lots of data that contradicts [the idea that a human being can be dead for three days and come back to life]" then why do you feel the need to "shoehorn" it into your faith? Again, I am not being sarcastic here. I really want to know how you are making the distinction between these two Biblical narratives.

I didn't say it was one or the other. Of course scripture plays an important role in my faith, but it is not so overly important that if you take one part of it away (e.g., the flood) then my entire faith collapses. But several fundamentalists here have expressed exactly that line of reasoning.

Yes, and this is the very idea I am trying to understand. How do we decide which parts we can "take away?" I think this is what fundamentalists objected to in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many have portrayed that the concept of inerrancy was never known until twentieth century fundamentalism came along. This is completely and utterly false. Inerrancy is not a new view.
Clement of Rome: "You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them" (approx. 95AD).
Irenaeus: "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit."
Augustine: "For I confess...that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of the Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."
Martin Luther praised the following statement: "St. Augustine, in a letter to St. Jerome, has put down a fine axiom--that only Holy Scripture is to be considered inerrant."
Martin Luther: "Scripture...has never erred. God's Word cannot err."
John Calvin also make comment to the effect that God's Word is "a sure and infallible record" "certain and unerring rule," and "unerring light."

So, to sidetrack on an important point a bit, I would take issue with your implications that these are issues for fundies who are improperly appropriating a Western mindset into literary works that were never understood in this manner. There is simply no record in any of church history that certain stories of Scripture could be "taken away" based on how believable or rational they were. I would argue that you are the one being moved by contemporary arguments, not the fundies. Such criticism of the Biblical text was unknown prior to the 19th century. Again, if we cannot believe the Bible is accurate in the things we can test, how can we claim it is accurate on spiritual matters we cannot observe? Still waiting for a response to this. It is not rhetorical.

Now, I would certainly qualify all this by saying that the literature of the Scriptures must be read in their context and according to their genre. I understand that some fundamentalists, especially when it comes to apocalyptic literature and Genesis accounts may approach such texts without regard to the historical context, culture or genre. But this is quite different from saying we just "take away" the stories we don't like.


I try and incorporate as much information as I can, and I try and remain as objective and intellectually honest as possible. Specific to the issue in this thread, if the data from the world around me doesn't support the Biblical flood, and I see lots of data that directly contradicts it, then I don't try and shoehorn it into my theology; I take it for what it is. And you're forgetting, I am a member of the scientific community. So in a lot of cases, I'm not just blindly taking someone's word.

Not only that, but when I look into creationists' arguments, I see repeated and consistent dishonesty. I've seen creationists do the most egregious things (like quote mining the work of scientists) and when confronted with it, refuse to admit what they've done. I've talked to people from creationist organizations and I personally find them very bizarre. Yet when I read the work of my fellow scientists and talk to them, I see much more objectivity and honesty.

It's like in the Nye-Ham deabate, where both were asked "What would change your mind". Nye answered "evidence" and Ham answered "nothing". To me, that was a very good illustration of the different modes of thinking between the two (and between me and fundamentalists).

First, let me say that I agree with you with regards to the Ham, Nye debate. I was very disappointed in Ham's presentation. He seemed much more intent on presenting the Gospel than answering Nye's questions or the questions of the audience. However, I do agree that there are aspects from both camps that are presupposed. I don't have time to go into all that, and it probably belongs in another thread anyway.

Also, I would agree that creationists have been guilty of taking evolutionists out of context and using the honest questions of evolutionists as fodder for discounting their own theory. Perhaps on occasion this is justified, but often it is not. However, I think evolutionists have also been guilty of dishonesty in their findings. Sometimes this is caught by creationists, sometimes it is caught by other evolutionists. Either way, there is dishonesty in both camps at times. Again, I think you are showing the tendency to be very skewed in your presentation of the groups as I noticed in our previous discussion on homosexuality.

Finally, I never suggested you are blindly taking someone's word. One of my very good friends is also part of the scientific community and is just shy of a PhD in molecular biology. He is a very devout Christian who believes in inerrancy, a global flood, and rejects Darwinian evolution as well as a 6,000 year-old earth. So just because your personal study has led you to certain conclusions does not mean this is true for others in the scientific community. I appreciate your educated view on these topics, but there are educated people who disagree with your view as I am sure you are aware.


Could you be more specific on what you've read on exobiology?

Regarding your claim about the math, do you have specific calculations to support your argument?

Most of the study I have done in this area was decades ago and I have long since forgotten specific titles or references. I admit that this area was never a focus of my studies, but it is something I have had a little formal study in many moons ago. However, I do regularly watch debates and read information in this area when I am able. I prefer the debates since I am able to hear arguments from the proponents themselves rather than a creationist quoting an evolutionist or vice-a-versa. In terms of the calculations, here are some sources to consider...

"...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space


Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

I think there are numerous other references from people like Cohen, Grebe and others. I have not studied their works individually, but have read other works that reference their comments. I can only assume they are being taken in the proper context. Again, this has not been my emphasis in my own education throughout the years.

I think another interesting source in terms of the apparent design in the biosphere to allow for intelligent life is the work done by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards



But there's a difference between proposing something like a vapor canopy, having the problems with it shown to you, and either altering or abandoning the idea, and proposing it, having the problems shown, and ignoring them/waving them away and continuing to repeat the same errors. The former is understandable. The latter is simply dishonest.

Well, this is not an area that I have any real interest in debating. Again, I am not concerned about canopies or polar ice caps. I want an explaination of your hermeneutical method. Personally, I find it to be hermeneutically dishonest to determine the authors intent of the flood being local or global based on your own exobiology studies or whatever else happens to be your cup of tea. I think we determine the author's intent by examining the text itself. Now if you choose to "take away" the story of the author because it doesn't fit your scientific expectations, then that is a valid choice. However, I wouldn't pose such a position as a valid hermeneutical method that views the Scriptures as authoritative. Such a view clearly has established the authority as "the data" around you, not the claims of the Bible. In such a case, I am puzzled at how the data around you validates angels, demons, resurrections, the parting of seas, healing of the blind, lame, etc.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Wormwood said:
It seems that you are intentionally avoiding the point. So let me ask you the question using your own words: "If the data in the world around [you] doesn't support [the resurrection], and you see lots of data that contradicts [the idea that a human being can be dead for three days and come back to life]" then why do you feel the need to "shoehorn" it into your faith? Again, I am not being sarcastic here. I really want to know how you are making the distinction between these two Biblical narratives.
I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. The resurrection is a decidedly, purely, 100% supernatural event. No natural explanation for it is possible, nor is it possible to argue against it from a natural standpoint. It was a miracle, period. No one here is disputing that, correct? No one here is claiming the resurrection is supported by the scientific evidence, and no one here is trying to come up with natural, scientific explanations for how it occurred.

The flood OTOH is entirely different. As this thread testifies, creationists are claiming that the flood is scientifically supported, valid, and justifiable. Creationists are trying to come up with natural, scientific explanations for how it occurred.

Do you appreciate the difference?

Yes, and this is the very idea I am trying to understand. How do we decide which parts we can "take away?"
Who said anything about taking it away?

I think this is what fundamentalists objected to in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many have portrayed that the concept of inerrancy was never known until twentieth century fundamentalism came along. This is completely and utterly false. Inerrancy is not a new view.
I've not said otherwise.

So, to sidetrack on an important point a bit, I would take issue with your implications that these are issues for fundies who are improperly appropriating a Western mindset into literary works that were never understood in this manner.
I've not made that argument.

Again, if we cannot believe the Bible is accurate in the things we can test, how can we claim it is accurate on spiritual matters we cannot observe? Still waiting for a response to this. It is not rhetorical.
Because there's no reason to adopt such a fundamentalist all-or-none mindset. It is possible to accept that the flood story looks very much like it was borrowed from the Babylonians, and appreciate it as providing insight into that aspect of Jewish history, and not have that affect one's faith in Christ.

Also, I would agree that creationists have been guilty of taking evolutionists out of context and using the honest questions of evolutionists as fodder for discounting their own theory. Perhaps on occasion this is justified, but often it is not. However, I think evolutionists have also been guilty of dishonesty in their findings. Sometimes this is caught by creationists, sometimes it is caught by other evolutionists. Either way, there is dishonesty in both camps at times. Again, I think you are showing the tendency to be very skewed in your presentation of the groups as I noticed in our previous discussion on homosexuality.
No, sorry. I've read a lot of creationist material, and still do to this day (given my science background, it's an important part of my ministry). This is not a case of "both sides do it". Creationist organizations are persistently deceitful on a scale that I can't find a comparison to. I'll show a specific example to you below.

Finally, I never suggested you are blindly taking someone's word. One of my very good friends is also part of the scientific community and is just shy of a PhD in molecular biology. He is a very devout Christian who believes in inerrancy, a global flood, and rejects Darwinian evolution as well as a 6,000 year-old earth. So just because your personal study has led you to certain conclusions does not mean this is true for others in the scientific community. I appreciate your educated view on these topics, but there are educated people who disagree with your view as I am sure you are aware.
Does your friend believe he has a scientifically valid case to make against evolutionary biology? And of course I realize there are people who disagree with me, just as I realize there are qualified people who believe in geocentrism, astrology, and the Loch Ness Monster.

Most of the study I have done in this area was decades ago and I have long since forgotten specific titles or references. I admit that this area was never a focus of my studies, but it is something I have had a little formal study in many moons ago. However, I do regularly watch debates and read information in this area when I am able. I prefer the debates since I am able to hear arguments from the proponents themselves rather than a creationist quoting an evolutionist or vice-a-versa. In terms of the calculations, here are some sources to consider...

"...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space
This is a very good illustration of the deceitfulness of creationist organizations. The entire argument rests on the notion that "it couldn't have happened randomly". Think about that for a second...what is the process by which the first life forms are hypothesized to have come about? It's chemistry. Now ask yourself a very simple and basic question: Is chemistry random?

The answer is obviously, no, it isn't. Chemistry is decidedly non-random! But here these creationists are trying to get people like you to think that it is.

Also, where did you copy that quote from?

Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."
That's nothing more than Denton saying "I can't imagine it happening".

I think there are numerous other references from people like Cohen, Grebe and others. I have not studied their works individually, but have read other works that reference their comments. I can only assume they are being taken in the proper context. Again, this has not been my emphasis in my own education throughout the years.

I think another interesting source in terms of the apparent design in the biosphere to allow for intelligent life is the work done by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards
Oftentimes kids in my ministry will come to me with material like this. Usually, I only have to ask one or two questions (like above) and they will realize on their own and say out loud, "They're lying to me!" I would suggest that if you're truly interested in this subject, you take the time to read up on what the scientists are actually doing and saying, rather than relying on creationists to tell you.

Well, this is not an area that I have any real interest in debating. Again, I am not concerned about canopies or polar ice caps.
Then you're missing the point. As I said above, no one here is trying to come up with natural explanations for the resurrection, nor are they claiming it's supported by science. But they are with the flood.

I want an explaination of your hermeneutical method. Personally, I find it to be hermeneutically dishonest to determine the authors intent of the flood being local or global based on your own exobiology studies or whatever else happens to be your cup of tea. I think we determine the author's intent by examining the text itself.
How do you interpret all the duplicity in the flood story (e.g., Noah and family board the ark twice)? How do you interpret the fact that in some places God is referred to as Elohim, but as Yahweh in others? Were the clean animals taken aboard the ark in pairs (Genesis 7:17) or in groups of seven (Genesis 7:2)?

If we're going to stick to just the text, then we have to figure out what's going on here.

Now if you choose to "take away" the story of the author because it doesn't fit your scientific expectations, then that is a valid choice. However, I wouldn't pose such a position as a valid hermeneutical method that views the Scriptures as authoritative. Such a view clearly has established the authority as "the data" around you, not the claims of the Bible.
And that's a very fundamentalist approach, where we are forced to choose between the reality that is around us or a particular reading of scripture. The former is not allowed to inform the latter at all.

In such a case, I am puzzled at how the data around you validates angels, demons, resurrections, the parting of seas, healing of the blind, lame, etc.
See above. I honestly don't know how else to explain it to you.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Do you appreciate the difference?

I think the question we are wrestling with is, does reality as we know it support the concept of a worldwide flood. Would the waters of the earth boil with that much rain? Was it rain at all? Were the waters released form below and where did the water go? These seem to be the questions related to this debate. Am I wrong? My point is that the Bible clearly depicts this event happened and it was worldwide. You seem to reject this because of science. I don't see how there is a difference between this and the resurrection.

I think the issue you are having is you keep wanting to make this about young-earth, 6,000 year creationism arguments. This is not what I have been debating with you as I have laboriously tried to communicate on multiple occasions. I believe the Bible teaches a worldwide flood...period. I believe the event was supernatural, including the animals, the survival of the ark, etc. This has nothing to do with canopy theories or trying to argue for a geological record that is 6,000 years that looks older because of the catastrophe. I am not interested in that debate at all. I think the flood was a supernatural event, as were the gathering of animals, the survival of the boat and perhaps the receding of the waters (I don't know about the physics and such behind such silly hypothetical debates). If you think its impossible because of the rocks under your feet, I don't know how that differs form the supernatural event of the resurrection and what we witness daily in modern medicine. That has been my point.

Who said anything about taking it away?
You did.


Of course scripture plays an important role in my faith, but it is not so overly important that if you take one part of it away (e.g., the flood) then my entire faith collapses.
I've not made that argument.
It seems implied.

Because there's no reason to adopt such a fundamentalist all-or-none mindset. It is possible to accept that the flood story looks very much like it was borrowed from the Babylonians, and appreciate it as providing insight into that aspect of Jewish history, and not have that affect one's faith in Christ
Seems to prove my above point (emphasis mine). I suggest you study the five fundamentals proposed by the "fundamentalists." I think your working definition of "fundamentalism" is heavily laden with baggage that is not necessarily appropriate for the term itself.

I would argue that there is no reason to adopt a liberal approach to redaction criticism/deconstructive hermeneutic which was introduced in the 19th century and was never how the church viewed the biblical texts.

Does your friend believe he has a scientifically valid case to make against evolutionary biology? And of course I realize there are people who disagree with me, just as I realize there are qualified people who believe in geocentrism, astrology, and the Loch Ness Monster.
Yes, and it seems you see all fundamentalists as a hair's breadth from geocentrism and the Loch Ness which is why I find your position to be so unconvincing. You seem to have an "all-or-nothing" perspective on how you view those who disagree with you on any topic.

He would be more qualified to answer that question than I would. I already claimed he does not accept Darwinian evolution, so I don't think there is any need to go beyond that.

This is a very good illustration of the deceitfulness of creationist organizations. The entire argument rests on the notion that "it couldn't have happened randomly".
What are you talking about? The quote is cited. I added nothing to it by way of creationism or put any particular spin on it. It is simply a quote from Evolution from Space. I think your reaction to the quote is a very good illustration of how quick you are to want to kick a creationist when I never even referenced one. The fact of the matter is that scientists cannot do what you think happened "non-randomly" by chemical processes (of course if something happened naturally without guidance...I would see that as the very essence of "random" as the definition of the word is "made, done, happening, or chosen without conscious decision." Your definition makes no sense. Are you saying chemicals have conscious decision making power?

That's nothing more than Denton saying "I can't imagine it happening".
That was my point from the beginning. What is yours?
How do you interpret all the duplicity in the flood story (e.g., Noah and family board the ark twice)? How do you interpret the fact that in some places God is referred to as Elohim, but as Yahweh in others? Were the clean animals taken aboard the ark in pairs (Genesis 7:17) or in groups of seven (Genesis 7:2)?

If we're going to stick to just the text, then we have to figure out what's going on here.
I don't think there is duplicity in the flood story anymore than there is duplicity in the creation narrative with Adam naming the animals. I think narratives, as they are told, can zoom into specific events and give details...assuming the reader knows that the repetition is not indicating a second account. I think you should put your cursor over Genesis 7:2 and read the text and you will get an answer to your own question.

Why is Jesus referred to Jesus in some places and Lord in others? Seems like you are trying to go down the J,E,P, D road which has pretty much been abandoned by a lot Biblical scholars today that once supported it. This is not the thread for such a discussion.

And that's a very fundamentalist approach, where we are forced to choose between the reality that is around us or a particular reading of scripture. The former is not allowed to inform the latter at all.
This is a non-answer and typical of your methods of labeling someone as a means of not having to deal with the question. I have been clearly asking you to give me your hermeneutical methods for your particular reading of Scripture. Apparently you have none..which is what I suspected.

See above. I honestly don't know how else to explain it to you.
Well you keep talking in two different directions. Now you have started to say that this is an issue for you because Christians are trying to use science to affirm the flood (which you continually point to YEC, which is a continually misleading approach you continual take in our discussion) and then on the other hand you were saying that you allow the scientific data around you to determine what you accept to be biblically true.

How about this: Why don't we say that science cant affirm the flood just as it cant affirm the resurrection. Would you be led to believe in a worldwide flood then? My guess is no, because it doesn't square with "the data." Your arguments are very circular RJ.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Wormwood said:
I think the question we are wrestling with is, does reality as we know it support the concept of a worldwide flood. Would the waters of the earth boil with that much rain? Was it rain at all? Were the waters released form below and where did the water go? These seem to be the questions related to this debate. Am I wrong?
No, you've nailed it.

My point is that the Bible clearly depicts this event happened and it was worldwide. You seem to reject this because of science. I don't see how there is a difference between this and the resurrection.
I don't "reject it because of science". That's far too simplistic.

I don't take it as a literal account of an actual, recent, worldwide flood that killed every living thing on earth except the passengers on a wooden boat. This is based on a number of things....the fact that the world around us, on multiple levels, shows absolutely no signs of such an event; the fact that there is much in the world around us that directly contradicts such an event; that there is evidence the Hebrews borrowed the story from the Babylonians and put their own spin on it; the fact that there are internal inconsistencies in the story.

IOW, there are far too many intellectual hoops one has to jump through to adopt the literalist reading. For example, if the event were purely supernatural, did God then go out of His way to cover it up and manipulate the evidence to make it look like it never happened? Specifically, did God reduce all animals to an extreme bottleneck, but then hide the evidence that should be in the genomes of their descendants? Or did God speed up evolution or creation to repopulate the earth with all the different species from each "kind", but then slow it back down as soon as we really started studying biology?

Contrast that with the resurrection. What sort of physical evidence do we expect of that event? IMO, nothing. Thus, you are trying to compare apples and oranges here.

I think the issue you are having is you keep wanting to make this about young-earth, 6,000 year creationism arguments. This is not what I have been debating with you as I have laboriously tried to communicate on multiple occasions. I believe the Bible teaches a worldwide flood...period. I believe the event was supernatural, including the animals, the survival of the ark, etc. This has nothing to do with canopy theories or trying to argue for a geological record that is 6,000 years that looks older because of the catastrophe. I am not interested in that debate at all. I think the flood was a supernatural event, as were the gathering of animals, the survival of the boat and perhaps the receding of the waters (I don't know about the physics and such behind such silly hypothetical debates). If you think its impossible because of the rocks under your feet, I don't know how that differs form the supernatural event of the resurrection and what we witness daily in modern medicine. That has been my point.
See above. A purely supernatural flood requires God to cover it up. A purely supernatural resurrection doesn't. Not only that, but the entire point of the resurrection is that it is supernatural!

Sorry, I meant "take it away" as a literal account of a real, recent global flood. Not "take it away" as at all informative or important to one's faith.

I would argue that there is no reason to adopt a liberal approach to redaction criticism/deconstructive hermeneutic which was introduced in the 19th century and was never how the church viewed the biblical texts.
I've provided specific reasons to take that approach to the flood story.

Yes, and it seems you see all fundamentalists as a hair's breadth from geocentrism and the Loch Ness which is why I find your position to be so unconvincing. You seem to have an "all-or-nothing" perspective on how you view those who disagree with you on any topic.
Do you realize there are geocentrists who are so specifically because of scripture? How do they differ in your mind from your approach to the flood story?

He would be more qualified to answer that question than I would. I already claimed he does not accept Darwinian evolution, so I don't think there is any need to go beyond that.
The reason I ask is I often encounter creationists who basically claim to be able to overthrow evolutionary theory. But when pressed, none of them will write anything up and send it off to a scientific journal and thereby become perhaps the most significant scientific figure in recent history. IOW, it's all talk.

What are you talking about? The quote is cited. I added nothing to it by way of creationism or put any particular spin on it. It is simply a quote from Evolution from Space.
Where did you copy it from?

I think your reaction to the quote is a very good illustration of how quick you are to want to kick a creationist when I never even referenced one. The fact of the matter is that scientists cannot do what you think happened "non-randomly" by chemical processes (of course if something happened naturally without guidance...I would see that as the very essence of "random" as the definition of the word is "made, done, happening, or chosen without conscious decision." Your definition makes no sense. Are you saying chemicals have conscious decision making power?
You're making my point for me. If I take two moles of hydrogen and one mole of oxygen and spark the mixture, do I get a random assortment of molecules and unbonded atoms? Why are chemists able to put specific reagents together and get specific products rather than random assortments of molecules and unbonded atoms?

That was my point from the beginning. What is yours?
One person saying "I don't think it can happen" is the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity. 200 years ago people didn't think heavier than air flight was possible. Today I can go down the highway and watch aircraft weighing thousands of tons take off and fly.

I don't think there is duplicity in the flood story anymore than there is duplicity in the creation narrative with Adam naming the animals. I think narratives, as they are told, can zoom into specific events and give details...assuming the reader knows that the repetition is not indicating a second account. I think you should put your cursor over Genesis 7:2 and read the text and you will get an answer to your own question.
I disagree. A close look at the text shows that it looks very much like two separate stories mashed together.

Why is Jesus referred to Jesus in some places and Lord in others? Seems like you are trying to go down the J,E,P, D road which has pretty much been abandoned by a lot Biblical scholars today that once supported it. This is not the thread for such a discussion.
Fair enough.

This is a non-answer and typical of your methods of labeling someone as a means of not having to deal with the question. I have been clearly asking you to give me your hermeneutical methods for your particular reading of Scripture. Apparently you have none..which is what I suspected.
??????????? I've specifically described for you many of the factors that inform my reading of this story....the text itself, older texts from Babylon, the world around me. What else do you want?

Well you keep talking in two different directions. Now you have started to say that this is an issue for you because Christians are trying to use science to affirm the flood (which you continually point to YEC, which is a continually misleading approach you continual take in our discussion) and then on the other hand you were saying that you allow the scientific data around you to determine what you accept to be biblically true.
Again, you're mixing up different aspects of the discussion. I urge you to go back and read through this thread, because frankly I don't have the patience to correct your misconceptions yet again.

How about this: Why don't we say that science cant affirm the flood just as it cant affirm the resurrection. Would you be led to believe in a worldwide flood then? My guess is no, because it doesn't square with "the data." Your arguments are very circular RJ.
See above. A belief in a purely supernatural flood requires one to believe God intentionally covered His tracks, whereas the resurrection requires no such thing. Please take the time to think about this.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
River Jordan .... you are losing it

You mock the creationist who can reconcile known science with Genesis

Yet you yourself have no proof it happened or didn't happen either

Furthermore , these debates did not originate because a bunch of religious people were trying to lean on science for proof

Rather it is because for many years secular scientists have had a heyday mocking creationists by saying science does not support it

You have been given many good examples , but you are so biased you will end up being good example of a poor researcher.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Arnie Manitoba said:
You mock the creationist who can reconcile known science with Genesis

Yet you yourself have no proof it happened or didn't happen either
Ok, let's get specific. With all the genomes that have been sequenced from a variety of species, why do none of them show any signs of an extreme bottleneck/founder effect about 4,000 years ago? If you're going to claim to have reconciled your beliefs with science, let's put that to the test.

Furthermore , these debates did not originate because a bunch of religious people were trying to lean on science for proof

Rather it is because for many years secular scientists have had a heyday mocking creationists by saying science does not support it
No, they originated because fundamentalists tried to get their beliefs into public school science classes. Had they not tried to do that, no one would have hardly noticed them.

You have been given many good examples , but you are so biased you will end up being good example of a poor researcher.
What are these "good examples"?
 

ChristianJuggarnaut

New Member
Feb 20, 2012
433
29
0
The hubris of the humanist. We can't see it so God must have hid His tracks, like some common thief afraid of River and her cohorts.

These comments make me sick.
 

RANDOR

Fishin Everyday
Apr 13, 2014
1,104
28
0
108
HEAVEN
If someone hasn't figured out where the water is by now.......and I mean from now to thousands of years past.....I doubt we are going to figure it out in the next few days. :)
I live at 10,000 ft above sea level.....in bear & dear and elk country..........hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm fossils everywhere. All need to know is......there was water here at one time......where it went who cares...where it came from...don't know.......but it definitely was here.

Kinda like the wind.........where did it come from?.............All I know is that it was here..............my hair is a mess.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
River Jordan said:
One of my Dad's basic rules of life is "Do the math". You should give it a try.
Dr David Berlinski said the same thing about evolutionary biologists like you ..... do the math .... and guess what ... your model does not work ....


.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
River Jordan said:
Is anyone here trying to make the case that the resurrection was entirely natural and scientifically supported?
If 1000 biology students witnesses Jesus Christ dying , and those same 1000 biology students observed , saw , spoke to , and touched Jesus 4 days later when He was resurrected ..... would that be scientific proof of ressurection ?




xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





Arnie Manitoba said:
River Jordan .... ask evolutionary scientists where all our water came from after "the big bang"

I would like to hear the answer
I am still waiting to hear the answer River Jordan .... in the meantime here is what "YOUR" science says .....

The exact origin of our planet's water, which covers about 70 percent of Earth's surface, is still a mystery to scientists. Many researchers think that, instead of water forming at the same time as Earth, objects in the outer solar system delivered water to Earth in violent collisions shortly after its formation.

During a period around 4 billion years ago called the Late Heavy Bombardment, massive objects, probably from the outer solar system, hit Earth and the inner planets. It's possible that these objects were filled with water, and that these collisions could have delivered gigantic reservoirs of water that filled Earth.


So River Jordan .... does it not sound like Genesis where it says God put water "in the vault of the sky" .... ????? .... and YOU laugh at us ??????





...