Where's the water?

[aspen]

That's quite an arrogant statement. You speak like an unbeliever and then complain when your "Christianity" is questioned. There are many credentialed believing scientists out there who would disagree vehemently that there is absolutely no scientific explanation for a literal global flood. There certainly are viable scientific flood models to consider. I presented one previously in this thread.

No, an arrogant statement might look like " you speak like an unbeliever". There are many more Christians who speak just like me than you - does that mean anything? Just because you've decided what a believer or unbeliever sounds like means nothing. Tell me the name of one geologist or even one creditable scientist in the earth sciences that believes in a worldwide flood based on predictable, observable events. And please, don't give a name of a scientist who does not study earth science - we all know Dr. Laura isn't a real psychiatrist or psychologist even though she is a doctor.

The miraculous intervention of God is a possible explanation, but to assert that it's the only one is intellectually dishonest.

Not according to predictable, observable events or extrapolations based on them. Do you know what intellectually dishonest means or are you just parroting James White?

The attacks of which you speak are not without warrant.

Really? Where did Jesus's sacrifice for my sins come into the conversation of the Flood account? I think you are mixing up my rejection of mindless fundamentalist culture and fan-hood as a rejection of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world. I hope it is an honest mistake, I would hate to find out your were being in intellectually dishonest.

You may in fact be a believer, I'm not questioning that, but you're capitulating to the mostly unbelieving world of so called science. It's not the only game in town, but i know, you don't want to look bad. Good luck with that. The fact that you believe in Christ at all makes you a fool in the eyes of those you're trying to please.

Spoken like a true fan. "Don't play on the same team as those people - they don't respect you - stop trying to impress them - they are laughing at you". LOL so the fact that I call observable, predictable events and extrapolation based on them, science and events that are not, miracles, means that I am trying to impress scientists? Haha - ok. I do not believe science is the method that should be relied on to explain all of existence - that is why I do not try to reduce miracles down to scientific terms like Hamm. I just happen to know the difference between science and miracles.

One last thing. The Bible presents a literal global flood without question.

No. No it does not. It only does according to your literalist mindset. Your view of God is based in Calvin's oppressive drive to preserve God's sovereignty as all costs and above all other aspects of His character. My dad can beat up your dad - very Old Testament. Now that we know Jesus, we know that people in the OT didn't take Gods entire character into consideration - apparently Calvin never got the message.

Calling into question one portion of Scripture is to call into question all of Scripture. You can't have it both ways. Either all Scripture is inspired as the Apostle Paul says or we don't know if any of it is inspired. Hence the "attacks."

No. No it does not. Neither Paul or John knew their writings were even part of scripture at the time they wrote their contributions. The message they were conveying is that we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, which Jesus had no problem summarizing. Was He leaving anything out? BTW, I am calling into question your literal view of this particular story - not scripture. I would do the same if you were taking Jesus's parables or Psalms literally.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

We must remember Jesus mentioned the flood of Noah , and he spoke of it as a literal flood

 

[aspen]

That is a good point, Arnie - will you give me the verse?

 

[Nomad]

Tell me the name of one geologist or even one creditable scientist in the earth sciences that believes in a worldwide flood based on predictable, observable events. And please, don't give a name of a scientist who does not study earth science - we all know Dr. Laura isn't a real psychiatrist or psychologist even though she is a doctor.

Are you serious? Your grasping at straws, but in any case, I'll grant your request.

John D. Morris, Ph.D

No. No it does not. It only does according to your literalist mindset. Your view of God is based in Calvin's oppressive drive to preserve God's sovereignty as all costs and above all other aspects of His character. My dad can beat up your dad - very Old Testament. Now that we know Jesus, we know that people in the OT didn't take Gods entire character into consideration - apparently Calvin never got the message.

This is asinine to it's core. Calvin wasn't mentioned and Calvin has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Enough said.

No. No it does not. Neither Paul or John knew their writings were even part of scripture at the time they wrote their contributions.

Since when does the inspiration of Scripture depend on the knowledge of the writers?

BTW, I am calling into question your literal view of this particular story - not scripture. I would do the same if you were taking Jesus's parables or Psalms literally.

There is a huge difference between historical narrative and a psalm or parable. Psalms and parables are an inherently figurative form of literature. Historical narrative is not figurative. The flood account is historical narrative. Don't tell me that you don't recognize the difference between different genres of literature.

Jesus himself recognized the flood as a literal event.

Mat 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
Mat 24:39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

So did Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

2Pe 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,
2Pe 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

 

[aspen]

Are you serious? Your grasping at straws, but in any case, I'll grant your request.

John D. Morris, Ph.D

Yes....how dare me ask...lol. I was instructed by Steven Meyers at Whitworth University, when I was a student - he is a founding member of the Discovery Institute. He is a philosopher, not a scientist and he is dishonest - his publication of a Discovery Institute article he authored in a legitimate scientific journal based only on his friendship with the editor discredits everyone within the think tank. That is includes john d. Morris. If he was respectable at one time, in is a long time ago. Even Wikipedia discredits him - sad. Anyone else?

This is asinine to it's core. Calvin wasn't mentioned and Calvin has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Enough said.

Nice to see you renounce your allegiance to Calvin - perhaps you are ready to move from Calvintian to Christianity? I applaud you.

Since when does the inspiration of Scripture depend on the knowledge of the writers?

Ummm....since God decided to used members of His fallen race to guide the rest of the Fallen race.

There is a huge difference between historical narrative and a psalm or parable. Psalms and parables are an inherently figurative form of literature. Historical narrative is not figurative. The flood account is historical narrative. Don't tell me that you don't recognize the difference between different genres of literature.

Not according to many posters on this board. I certainly know the difference. Thanks for asking. I fear you do not - the creation story and the flood need to be added to your list.

Jesus himself recognized the flood as a literal event.

Mat 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
Mat 24:39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

So did Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

2Pe 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,
2Pe 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

I totally agree. All the characters in the story were affected - just like all the characters in Jesus's parable were affected.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

UD
Irrelevant. I am not an atheist, nor have a mentioned anything about multiple universes. Finally, no one needs to talk about multiple universes to question the canopy of water idea.

Strawman #1. I never said you were an athiest. Strawman #2. I never said that multiple universes had anything to do with the water canopy, other than illustrate the fact that comparing the earth with other planets is nothing other than strawman #3 since this discussion concerns the earth.. which non-athiests rarely consider to be just one planet among all the others.

Scientists can calculate the amount of water the atmosphere would have to contain to cover the whole Earth - it is not a mysterious number. I am just wondering if that amount would increase the atmospheric pressure enough to crush life on Earth. That is why I asked my questions.

OH! It's really that simple is it? Well what's "non-mysterious" the number? What calculations can you provide that show that no mater the distance or thickness of the canopy it would crush all life on earth. Surely you're not bluffing aspen?

No one has been able to disprove the existence of any made up idea, UD.

Sure, and that includes evolution, uniformitarianism and all other scientific theories. Thanks for proving my point.

However, based on what we know about science, I am pretty sure that the water canopy idea is not possible

Oh, so you are "not a scientist" and yet seem to be "pretty sure" about "what we KNOW about science". What we KNOW is NEVER described as being "pretty sure". But just to disperse all doubts, please explain how "what we KNOW about science" makes a water canopy at ANY distance or thickness impossible.

What does radiation have to do with atmospheric pressure? It is like claiming that the Donnor party could not have starved because they had plenty of snow surrounding them to melt to make water to drink.

Where did I say that radiation had ANYTHING to do with atmospheric pressuse??? Please don't litter this thread with silly strawmen.
If on the other hand you want to make the argument that radiation has nothing to do with water then please present your case. In the meantime read the following article that makes the claim that "Water is probably the most effective radiation shield of all."

http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/tff/radiation_shield.html

Um actually, no. Carbon would still decay at the same rate regardless of the amount of radiation present. Sugar dissolves into water at the same rate no matter how much water is present - it may be more diluted, but it doesn't change how fast it dissolves.

Um actually, another strawman. I never claimed that sugar would dissolve at the any particular rate in water. And neither did you, as a "non-scientist", explain how you KNOW that carbon decays at the same rate simply by making such claims. Neither you nor I know all of the physics involved and neither you nor I have sifted through ALL of the claims being made and have kept track of all the assumptions being made. So please don't tell me what we "KNOW".

Even Wikipedia discredits him - sad.

Oh.. hehehe... that really made me laugh...

Reminds me of when Jesus was before the Sanhedrin and the high priest tore his clothes saying "Why do we need any more witnesses?"

Well gee, one of the two points provided by Wikipedia concerned Morris's interpretaion of the "partial hip bone and a knee bone" of Lucy, saying that it is "hotly contested"!

Oh the guy should be stoned!!!!

The other point came from TalkOrigins... a completely unbiased source it seems!

Give us a break aspen...

 

[RANDOR]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm me thinks it was the tears of God for having to do so...

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I think we are sidetracked trying to pit science against genesis , the original question was .... "where is the water"

And as I have said many times 72% of the earth is under water right now

And if we could push the mountains down and the sea floor up the remaining 28% would be under water too.

We would not even need rain or the fountains of the deep to burst forth , there is enough water here right now

To be clear , I do not claim God pushed mountains up and sea floors down after the flood , maybe he did , I dont know , but every geologist will tell you that plate tectonics and upheavals of earth's crust gave us our mountains and uneven terrain.

And it is common scientific knowledge most of our land was under water at one time

Secular scientists still do not know how it all happened , but the creationist allows it could be Noah related

A Noah flood would not violate our accepted science at all ..... the only question is the timing .... did it happen over a long period of time (scientific guess) .... or a short period of time (religious guess)

 

[Wormwood]

aspen,

I must say I find your argument very unconvincing. It seems you are far more swayed by the scientific community on this issue than you are the actual teaching of the Bible. I find this to be a dangerous road to walk down. The Scriptures speak of divine, miraculous intervention into the course of human history which is out of bounds for the scientific community. Ultimately, some teachings of the Bible must be embraced by faith (just as many elements of science are embraced by faith).

It seems abundantly clear that Jesus and Peter both reference the flood in Scripture as a means of depicting a universal judgment. This seems quite clear that both of them are speaking of the judgment of the entire world. According to your argument, perhaps the Second Coming will only be visible to those in the Middle East....just as the flood was localized. Many texts point to the concept that only eight people were saved. This is not about some modern hyper-literalism. It is about reading the text in context and allowing the text to speak. If anyone is allowing modern, cultural conditioning to influence our understanding of the text, it is you. There is absolutely no indication that Peter, Jesus or the account in Genesis is actually attempting to portray a localized judgment. This is especially true of Jesus and Peter's teaching on the topic as they are didactic, not poetic or parabolic.

No. No it does not. Neither Paul or John knew their writings were even part of scripture at the time they wrote their contributions. The message they were conveying is that we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, which Jesus had no problem summarizing. Was He leaving anything out? BTW, I am calling into question your literal view of this particular story - not scripture. I would do the same if you were taking Jesus's parables or Psalms literally.

This is absolute nonsense. First, you are assuming (incorrectly) that neither of these men knew that what they were writing was inspired. In fact, Paul not only clearly speaks at times as his directions are coming straight from the Lord, but also that the recipients of the letters were instructed to circulate these teachings. (1 Thess. 5:27; Gal. 1:2; Col. 4:16; 1 Cor. 7:10; 1 Cor. 14:38). Moreover, Peter, a contemporary of Paul, declares Paul's writings to be "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:16). In the same way, John wrote to a broad audience. His Gospel was written for the masses that "you might believe and by believing have life in his name." Some other texts that clearly indicate that John saw what he was writing was authoritative for all believers (1 John 1:3; 1 John 4:6). Clearly John saw his Revelation as authoritative for the churches as well.

Also, your reasoning is quite faulty because it puts the emphasis of the Scriptures on the understanding of the writers rather than on the inspiration of the Spirit. Are you suggesting that the Spirit is somehow hindered in what He can communicate because of the lack of understanding of the authors? This line of reasoning totally undermines the very concept of inspiration and revelation. Furthermore, no one is suggesting that each story or teaching says all their is to say about any given topic. That is not the issue. The issue is what did the author intend? Did the author, inspired by the Holy Spirit, intend to communicate to his audience that the flood was localized or global? According to you, the author really intended to teach that the flood was localized and we are reading too much into the text. However, your argument is based on nothing but contemporary hermeneutics based from modern skepticism brought fourth from the enlightenment. There is nothing in the text itself that would suggest that the author means what you are claiming and that we are simply taking their teachings too literally. The context is universal judgment at Christ's return illustrated by another universal judgment...the flood.

It seems to me that the only real basis for your hermeneutics on this issue is the scientific community and a host of assumptions of what the authors really meant or failed to realize. Let the text speak and draw your conclusions from it.

 

[shturt678]

Thank you for caring Wormwood again!

Just the kickstart I needed for the day, ie, edifying and encouraging,

Old Jack

 

[River Jordan]

I have an understanding of basic math and critical thinking skills and enough honesty to say anything is possible.

SO if the water could have been somewhere else....it could have been used on the surface to flood. That is all I am saying...it is possible. I am not even saying it is probable just possible. Draw your own conclusions. There is simply enough water if that water was anywhere other than where it is now. So the point that there has never been enough water to flood the surface above the highest peak in now invalid.

If there is currently enough water on the earth to flood it entirely for one year, why isn't it flooded now?

Try to live and breath on top of mount Everest where the pressure is low , the atmosphere is thin , and the oxygen is minimal

Compare that to living at sea level , where atmospheric pressure is higher , oxygen is more abundant

Did I really have to point that out for you ?

Your first research project should be to take some rats , enclose them in a pressure vessel with all the food they need , slowly increase the pressure and oxygen and see if they live longer or healthier

The results would be interesting.

So more pressure is always better? Is that what you're saying?

Genesis says the water was put up into a vault above , he called the vault the sky , we are not given the details as to how high , whether it was a canopy or vapor , maybe even ice crystals for all we know .... comets are ice are they not ?

If we want to just say "God made it happen" and ignore everything else (like the physics of specific scenarios), then just say so and we can be done.

And when you really stop and think of it River Jordan , that mention alone confirms the accuracy of Genesis because if Genesis did not mention that god stored water above the earth the Noah flood theory would fall flat on its face .... there would be no source of the 40 days of rain

God got it right the first time , Genesis includes those bits of bulletproof information , no fiction writer could have come up with that 4000 years ago .... it is only in the past 200 years mankind has barely begun to understand anything about our planet and universe ... we are the slow and stupid ones.

Except that the Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the Hebrew story, and it looks very much like the Hebrews borrowed the story and put their own spin on it (something all cultures have done).

Um... River... depite the fact that the above argument is completely daft... I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that the water found in any part of the earth has been positively identified as the the water used in the flood. It is simply a reponse to an argument commonly used by people who want to discredit the Bible. YOU, on the other hand, are the one who seems to be making the claim that the water referred to in the article is "at it's lowest point" and therefore has ALWAYS been at it's present lowest point:

"You can't use water that's already at it's lowest point to flood a surface that's 400 miles above."

Just outside of Sydney where I grew up there is a place called the "Blow Hole". Water from the ocean is blown up through the hole and then runs back down into the hole.

I think that pretty much disproves your point.

???????? It proves my point, i.e., that water always runs back to its lowest point. Specific to what you're citing, does the water from the blow hole flood the land? No, it does exactly what you said...runs back down to it's lowest point.

This assumes that there were no catastrophic plate tectonics involved in at least part of the flood's mechanism. It assumes that the ocean's basins were exactly the same as they are today. That cannot be assumed based on the flood account found in Genesis.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Gen 7:12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

During the flood we have water on the earth, water above the earth and water from under the earth all converging on the earth's surface. The "bursting forth" of "all the fountains of the great deep" would have been catastrophic to the point of reshaping the whole earth. Reshape the ocean basins and there is more than enough water for a global flood as described in Genesis.

If we even out the ocean basins and flatten out the mountains, there is enough water to cover the entire earth by about 1.7 miles (2.7 km) - Ken Ham and Tim Lovett https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/was-there-really-a-noahs-ark-flood/

As I said earlier in this thread, you can't move that much mass in that short of a time without generating enough heat to boil off the oceans and atmosphere.

No reason for water in the sky to increase air pressure down here .... all the metal satellites we have in orbit do not increase our pressure , sky full of clouds (water) do not increase pressure

If you try and put the water above the earth's ozone layer, the unfiltered UV light would break apart the water molecules. Look up "photodissociation of water". Come on guys, quit just making stuff up off the top of your head without thinking it through first.

I must say I find your argument very unconvincing. It seems you are far more swayed by the scientific community on this issue than you are the actual teaching of the Bible. I find this to be a dangerous road to walk down. The Scriptures speak of divine, miraculous intervention into the course of human history which is out of bounds for the scientific community. Ultimately, some teachings of the Bible must be embraced by faith (just as many elements of science are embraced by faith).

That right there sums up the fundamentalist approach very nicely. "How dare you give credence to science! You must read the Bible as we do and believe what we say uncritically."

It seems to me that the only real basis for your hermeneutics on this issue is the scientific community and a host of assumptions of what the authors really meant or failed to realize. Let the text speak and draw your conclusions from it.

The world around us also serves as God's revelation, and it simply does not show anything supportive of this young-earth flood geology....at all. For example, consider big oil companies and how they search for new sources of oil. They don't care one bit about ideology or loyalty to any group. All they care about is the most efficient means of making money. And guess what? Not one of them utilizes a young-earth or flood geology framework in their surveys. Now don't you think if the entire earth really was flooded just a few thousand years ago, a framework built around that would prove to be much more accurate and useful to them? And don't you think they'd drop their current framework in a heartbeat?

But they don't, do they? The reason is simple..it's no atheist conspiracy or plot...it's just the basic fact that the old-earth, non-flood framework works.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

If there is currently enough water on the earth to flood it entirely for one year, why isn't it flooded now?

River,

I do not know what to say to you at this point. I do not want to get rude, but I am left with only a couple of reasonable conclusions.

1. I am too stupid to be able to communicate sufficiently to you.

2. You could be a child posing as an adult.

3. You may need serious help.

I have no idea what the question is supposed to even mean. It is obvious why we are not flooded now...the water is 300-400 miles deep in a different form...thus the article. But as you already conceded...it could have been somewhere else other than where it is now at any other point in time in history. Why it isn't at the surface now doesn't seem to be part of the historical nature we are discussing. The point was, again, it could have been used in the flood 6,000 years ago. Could have. Could have. Could have. I did not say was. Could have. Could have. Could have.

God said He would never flood the earth like that again...so we will never be flooded like that again. Period. He won't do it because HE can't lie.

SL

 

[River Jordan]

I have no idea what the question is supposed to even mean.

You should.

It is obvious why we are not flooded now...the water is 300-400 miles deep in a different form...thus the article. But as you already conceded...it could have been somewhere else other than where it is now at any other point in time in history.

And to try and explain again, that water currently occupies space. No matter where it is or what form it is in, it always has and always will occupy space. As soon as that water goes somewhere else (like the surface of the earth), that space will be taken up by something else, either some other water or some other matter. If that space remains empty and there is a pathway for that water to reach the surface, then it will immediately run right back down and re-occupy the space.

This isn't complicated.

The point was, again, it could have been used in the flood 6,000 years ago. Could have. Could have. Could have. I did not say was. Could have. Could have. Could have.

And you've given absolutely no reason to think it did, or tackled all the problems that come with it.

 

[shturt678]

If there is currently enough water on the earth to flood it entirely for one year, why isn't it flooded now?

So more pressure is always better? Is that what you're saying?


If we want to just say "God made it happen" and ignore everything else (like the physics of specific scenarios), then just say so and we can be done.


Except that the Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the Hebrew story, and it looks very much like the Hebrews borrowed the story and put their own spin on it (something all cultures have done).


???????? It proves my point, i.e., that water always runs back to its lowest point. Specific to what you're citing, does the water from the blow hole flood the land? No, it does exactly what you said...runs back down to it's lowest point.


As I said earlier in this thread, you can't move that much mass in that short of a time without generating enough heat to boil off the oceans and atmosphere.


If you try and put the water above the earth's ozone layer, the unfiltered UV light would break apart the water molecules. Look up "photodissociation of water". Come on guys, quit just making stuff up off the top of your head without thinking it through first.


That right there sums up the fundamentalist approach very nicely. "How dare you give credence to science! You must read the Bible as we do and believe what we say uncritically."


The world around us also serves as God's revelation, and it simply does not show anything supportive of this young-earth flood geology....at all. For example, consider big oil companies and how they search for new sources of oil. They don't care one bit about ideology or loyalty to any group. All they care about is the most efficient means of making money. And guess what? Not one of them utilizes a young-earth or flood geology framework in their surveys. Now don't you think if the entire earth really was flooded just a few thousand years ago, a framework built around that would prove to be much more accurate and useful to them? And don't you think they'd drop their current framework in a heartbeat?

But they don't, do they? The reason is simple..it's no atheist conspiracy or plot...it's just the basic fact that the old-earth, non-flood framework works.

Thank you for caring!

Only one little itsy bitsy problem, viz., Gen.1:1, etc. Contextually six twenty-four hour days followed by one such day of rest - not periods of time here.

When our Lord turned the earth 45 degrees off its axis, the mountains we're not so high, rain pouring down big time - young earth strongly confirmed 7,000 years or so.

Relax, only an insignificant opinion, old Jack

Careful, Lions run about 400 pounds, worse yet watch out more for the 800 pound Gorilla in room? Not me.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

River,

There are no problems with it. Even in this thread possibilities have been given to you as to where the water came from. You can not prove to me it did not happen any more than I can prove to you that it did.

There is only one fact: The water is there. There is enough to cover all current land area over the highest point. There has apparently always been enough water. The point of this thread is to end the "there isn't enough water" argument that we hear continuously.

Don't worry, someday science will catch up with the Bible and be able to tell us where the water was before it's current resting place. I would imagine they will finally say there was an extra atmosphere of water around the earth...just like the bible seems to indicate. Until then, we will have to theorize and hypothesize and postulate. Until then...we can stop using the argument that there isn't enough water to cover the land.

Thank you and good day,

SL

 

[River Jordan]

There are no problems with it. Even in this thread possibilities have been given to you as to where the water came from. You can not prove to me it did not happen any more than I can prove to you that it did.

Every "possibility" carries certain consequences, which you guys are unable to address.

There is only one fact: The water is there. There is enough to cover all current land area over the highest point. There has apparently always been enough water. The point of this thread is to end the "there isn't enough water" argument that we hear continuously.

Then why isn't it flooded now? If there's enough water on the earth to flood it entirely for a year, why isn't that water flooding it now?

Don't worry, someday science will catch up with the Bible and be able to tell us where the water was before it's current resting place. I would imagine they will finally say there was an extra atmosphere of water around the earth...just like the bible seems to indicate. Until then, we will have to theorize and hypothesize and postulate. Until then...we can stop using the argument that there isn't enough water to cover the land.

So no matter what, just declare victory eh? :lol:

 

[Nomad]

I totally agree. All the characters in the story were affected - just like all the characters in Jesus's parable were affected.

There we have it. I knew you would eventually just come out and say it. I applaud your honesty. For liberals like yourself, who have one foot in the world and one in some form of "Christian" spirituality, Scripture means what ever you want it to mean and therefore it means nothing at all. I'll bet your view of Biblical soteriology is just as vacuous as your view of the flood account.

 

[River Jordan]

When our Lord turned the earth 45 degrees off its axis, the mountains we're not so high, rain pouring down big time - young earth strongly confirmed 7,000 years or so.

I've never heard that before. Where'd you get it from?

 

[Wormwood]

That right there sums up the fundamentalist approach very nicely. "How dare you give credence to science! You must read the Bible as we do and believe what we say uncritically."

Are you saying you dismiss the biblical account of the resurrection? Clearly it does not square with science. No one is saying "read the Bible as we do." I am saying that we strive to understand the authors intended meaning. Can you show me how any of the authors could have intended the flood to be understood only as localized?

The world around us also serves as God's revelation, and it simply does not show anything supportive of this young-earth flood geology....at all. For example, consider big oil companies and how they search for new sources of oil. They don't care one bit about ideology or loyalty to any group. All they care about is the most efficient means of making money. And guess what? Not one of them utilizes a young-earth or flood geology framework in their surveys. Now don't you think if the entire earth really was flooded just a few thousand years ago, a framework built around that would prove to be much more accurate and useful to them? And don't you think they'd drop their current framework in a heartbeat?

But they don't, do they? The reason is simple..it's no atheist conspiracy or plot...it's just the basic fact that the old-earth, non-flood framework works.

I never said anything about a young-earth. The narrative and teachings of Jesus and Peter on the flood have nothing to do with young earth/old earth debates. The issue is whether or not the teaching on the flood is speaking of a universal flood or a localized one.

What does geology and oil have to do with this subject? Those sciences are derived on the geological studies as they are found today. This has nothing to do with the authors intent on the issue of the flood and what Jesus and Peter believed about the flood. Sounds like a professor at a local college who tried to argue with me that we couldn't build bridges today without Darwinian evolutionary views (not to mention bridges were built by the Romans thousands of years before Darwin).

I have nothing against science...but issues of resurrection, miracles, divine plagues, parting of seas, etc. clearly fall outside of natural law. If you try to smoosh all the teachings of the Bible into natural law and what modern science accepts, then I think it would be impossible to be a Christian. Perhaps a Deist, but not a Christian.

I've never heard that before. Where'd you get it from?

One popular view is that the earth was a paradise before the flood with a canopy of water acting as a greenhouse. At the flood, the canopy fell. The earth turned on its axis to change the climate, freeze the polar caps which caused much of the water to resend. I don't know much about it, but I think that is what is being referred to. From my understanding, one of the concerns of global warming is the melting of the ice caps would cause immense flooding.

 

[River Jordan]

Are you saying you dismiss the biblical account of the resurrection? Clearly it does not square with science.

I'm sorry, is anyone trying to argue that the resurrection is scientifically defensible and explainable from a purely natural standpoint?

No one is saying "read the Bible as we do." I am saying that we strive to understand the authors intended meaning. Can you show me how any of the authors could have intended the flood to be understood only as localized?

We don't know who wrote the flood story, and we have extremely good evidence that the Hebrews borrowed it from the Babylonians and put their own spin on it. Cultures do that all the time, so there's no reason to think the Hebrews were immune.

I never said anything about a young-earth. The narrative and teachings of Jesus and Peter on the flood have nothing to do with young earth/old earth debates. The issue is whether or not the teaching on the flood is speaking of a universal flood or a localized one.

I put young-earth as a prefix to make sure we're all talking about the same thing...the entire earth being flooded for a year, about 4,000 years ago, and everything dying except what was on the ark.

What does geology and oil have to do with this subject? Those sciences are derived on the geological studies as they are found today.

The flood advocates here are trying to make the case that this flood model is accurate, which means the current one used by geologists and oil companies is not only wrong, but really, really wrong. Yet no one in those fields seems to have noticed.

I have nothing against science...but issues of resurrection, miracles, divine plagues, parting of seas, etc. clearly fall outside of natural law. If you try to smoosh all the teachings of the Bible into natural law and what modern science accepts, then I think it would be impossible to be a Christian. Perhaps a Deist, but not a Christian.

Perhaps you need to explain that to those here who are trying to argue that the flood is completely explainable in natural terms.

One popular view is that the earth was a paradise before the flood with a canopy of water acting as a greenhouse. At the flood, the canopy fell. The earth turned on its axis to change the climate, freeze the polar caps which caused much of the water to resend. I don't know much about it, but I think that is what is being referred to.

And as I've explained, that carries necessary consequences that basically render the earth uninhabitable. That's my point here...Christians are making up these absurd scenarios that are so easily shown to be untenable, anyone with a basic understanding of physics and math can do it, with the end result being a lot of people laughing at Christians.