A Few Questions About The Great Flood (Holy Spirit, trinity, Jesus Christ)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
High is a relative term. The building I work in is high, but it is only two stories tall. Is that high compared to the Empire States Building?
I did not say that there was no mountains. If we were able to compare moutinain of Noah's time to today, "high" would mean two different things.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're high??? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my life! Pre-flood mountains were higher than post flood mountains? I don't think that even the Grand Poombah of Creationist Literature would go for that one.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're high??? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my life! Pre-flood mountains were higher than post flood mountains? I don't think that even the Grand Poombah of Creationist Literature would go for that one.
No, I am saying that pre-flood mountains were lower than post-flood mountains. That is why they were easier to cover by the flood waters, but there were still mountains.
Yeah, I was just pointing out the absurdity of the typo.
Let's see your model, then. How specifically did the flood sort fossil remains and sediment so that it looks exactly as if it were laid down gradually over millions or billions of years?
Start with something simple - both dinosaurs and primitive mammals are found in the same layer. How did they get there, and why are they found nowhere else in the geologic column? Remember that dinosaurs range in size quite a bit, but are found with other organisms their own age, and not in layers which happen to have younger species that are the same size. What's the mechanism that "knows" how fossils of similar sizes are supposed to be sorted consistently so that they can fool modern scientists into believing that the flood didn't do it.
And more importantly, if this mechanism is so effective in fooling all of the world's modern geologists into believing that the flood never happened, how are you so sure that it did?
If a fossil is found in the "wrong" layer paleontologists say the layer was "re-worked". They have lots of reasonings to fix the layer or explain why it doesn't look the way it is "supposed" to look.
Modern geologist hold to the Uniformatarian model of the geological column. So to write that the layers were layed down in any other fasion would mean they would loose their backing monitarily. And we all have bills to pay. They will often try to look for a layer in the column which is from the flood, but not realize that the entire column is the flood.
I am sure that the flood happened because the bible said it did. It says that it was a global flood not a local one. This is my presupposition. Most modern scientist, geologist etc. start from the presupposition that there is no God. Because of this we can look at the same evidence but interpret it differently.
If a fossil is found in the "wrong" layer paleontologists say the layer was "re-worked". They have lots of reasonings to fix the layer or explain why it doesn't look the way it is "supposed" to look.
Are you talking about flood "geologists" here or real scientists?
Quote:
Modern geologist hold to the Uniformatarian model of the geological column. So to write that the layers were layed down in any other fasion would mean they would loose their backing monitarily. And we all have bills to pay. They will often try to look for a layer in the column which is from the flood, but not realize that the entire column is the flood.
I am sure that the flood happened because the bible said it did. It says that it was a global flood not a local one. This is my presupposition. Most modern scientist, geologist etc. start from the presupposition that there is no God. Because of this we can look at the same evidence but interpret it differently.
I'll take this to mean that you can't explain how the flood models predict what we see, and instead want to attack the honesty and professionalism of geologists around the world. I guess since there really is no coherent flood model, that's probably your best approach. I don't find it convincing, though.
Basically, your claim is that all of the world's scientists are involved in a giant conspiracy theory. Instead of trying to do honest research, they've all been working together for the past few centuries for the express purpose of disproving your particular concept of what the Christian god is. Do I have that correct? What's their motivation? Wouldn't they get more funding if their results were useful (say, to the oil industry) instead of just hiding and distorting the truth to prove some American Protestants wrong? I don't get it.
so if my maths is correct, we would need between 102,000,000,000,000 to 220,000,000,000,000,000 liters of water. To put this into perspective, the volume of water is equivalent to a moon between 580km in diameter to something about 2.15 times bigger the earth's moon
Global flood? more like one of the many local floods that hit an area containing guys with very vivid imaginations
The Bible says in Genesis 7:20; "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." A cubit is 1.5' aproximately. So the bible says that 15 cubits was all that was required to cover the high mountains.
Are you talking about flood "geologists" here or real scientists?
I'll take this to mean that you can't explain how the flood models predict what we see, and instead want to attack the honesty and professionalism of geologists around the world. I guess since there really is no coherent flood model, that's probably your best approach. I don't find it convincing, though.
Basically, your claim is that all of the world's scientists are involved in a giant conspiracy theory. Instead of trying to do honest research, they've all been working together for the past few centuries for the express purpose of disproving your particular concept of what the Christian god is. Do I have that correct? What's their motivation? Wouldn't they get more funding if their results were useful (say, to the oil industry) instead of just hiding and distorting the truth to prove some American Protestants wrong? I don't get it.
Yes, I am talking real geologist or real scientist. A real geologist can believe in creation, but the majority do not. If a geologist believes in creation in order to do work they often compromise their beliefs in order to get funding and printed in the periodicals.
Scientist even secular ones can do good work. Often though knowing why something is the way it is does not affect the perticular work. Like finding oil. Whether you know that oil is a product of the mass burring of plants and animals during the global flood or that it is the product of plants and animal that died and were buried in the past (place as many millions of years that you want here because it doesn't make a difference and some scientist will come around to tack on a few more zero's anyways). The results is the same because what you are looking for is the same. Most of the search for oil is a hit or miss guess anyways.
No, I am saying that pre-flood mountains were lower than post-flood mountains. That is why they were easier to cover by the flood waters, but there were still mountains.
I am now impressed... Nikk, I don't think you could look at me with a straight face and tell me that you think that's true. You know as well as I do that there's nothing in the Bible that states that mountains were lower prior to Noah's flood. It seems to me like you're really trying hard to explain something that you full well know doesn't add up. In order to do that, you're throwing out some really bogus stuff.
I am now impressed... Nikk, I don't think you could look at me with a straight face and tell me that you think that's true. You know as well as I do that there's nothing in the Bible that states that mountains were lower prior to Noah's flood. It seems to me like you're really trying hard to explain something that you full well know doesn't add up. In order to do that, you're throwing out some really bogus stuff.
I just posted the quote from the bible saying that the mountains were covered with 15 cubits. We measure mountains today and they are taller than 15 cubits. So The mountains of Noah's time were small than mountains today.
Many of todays mountains have reached the hights they are at because of the plate tectonics. These tectonic actions did not begin to occur until after the flood.
If you don't want to believe my accont of how things have happened that is fine, believe what you want. I wasn't the one who started this thread, I am just giving my opinion of how it happened.
Yes, I am talking real geologist or real scientist. A real geologist can believe in creation, but the majority do not. If a geologist believes in creation in order to do work they often compromise their beliefs in order to get funding and printed in the periodicals.
Why do the majority of real scientists not believe a literal flood happened?
And if creationist geologists had a real scientific model to work from, why would they have to compromise their beliefs? If the flood "models" are truly scientific, why can't they get them published in scientific journals? Is it the vast centuries-old multi-national conspiracy to put down your particular religious beliefs in action again? If it is, let's see a list of scientific flood geology papers that were submitted and rejected specifically because of the religious beliefs of the authors.
Quote:
Scientist even secular ones can do good work. Often though knowing why something is the way it is does not affect the perticular work. Like finding oil. Whether you know that oil is a product of the mass burring of plants and animals during the global flood or that it is the product of plants and animal that died and were buried in the past (place as many millions of years that you want here because it doesn't make a difference and some scientist will come around to tack on a few more zero's anyways). The results is the same because what you are looking for is the same. Most of the search for oil is a hit or miss guess anyways.
When searching for oil, scientists use knowledge of geology - the layers of rock and how fossils in them correspond to age of the material - to figure out where to drill. You said that the flood "model" produced different results than modern science for these questions. Now you say that flood "models" add nothing to these sorts of investigations? If so, why do you reject modern geology and the rest of modern science in exchange for flood "geology"?
And again, I'd still like to see specifics on how the flood knew how to sort fossils by apparent age instead of size, mass, density or shape, and why was it able to sort fossils differently from the way it sorted the surrounding rock and soil. Why was the water from the flood so different compared to how we see water sorting things today?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
