The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17187
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby RickD » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:02 am

Stu wrote:
RickD wrote:
Stu wrote:
bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?


So the Bible isn't inspired by God? It is the work of man?

The young earth/global flood INTERPRETATION, isn't equal to Scripture. It's an interpretation of scripture, by man.

Surely you're not so narrow-minded and dogmatic, that you can't understand the difference?
You seem intelligent. Why don't you understand that concept? It's not rocket surgery.


I was talking about what bippy said which equals that man wrote the Bible and not God. Did you see the bold part.

Perhaps we should wait to see what he meant and not interpret for him y/:]

Of course I saw the bold part. It still doesn't mean man wrote the Bible, not inspired by God.

It's simply a different interpretation than your "equal to scripture" young earth/entire earth flood interpretation.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:21 am

RickD wrote:
Stu wrote:
RickD wrote:
Stu wrote:
bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?


So the Bible isn't inspired by God? It is the work of man?

The young earth/global flood INTERPRETATION, isn't equal to Scripture. It's an interpretation of scripture, by man.

Surely you're not so narrow-minded and dogmatic, that you can't understand the difference?
You seem intelligent. Why don't you understand that concept? It's not rocket surgery.


I was talking about what bippy said which equals that man wrote the Bible and not God. Did you see the bold part.

Perhaps we should wait to see what he meant and not interpret for him y/:]

Of course I saw the bold part. It still doesn't mean man wrote the Bible, not inspired by God.

It's simply a different interpretation than your "equal to scripture" young earth/entire earth flood interpretation.


It is an example of that thing I said about people thinking they are inerrant.

Their opinion=God's word, so they cannot possibly be wrong.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:24 am

Stu wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Stu wrote:
RickD wrote:
Stu wrote:
So the Bible isn't inspired by God? It is the work of man?

The young earth/global flood INTERPRETATION, isn't equal to Scripture. It's an interpretation of scripture, by man.

Surely you're not so narrow-minded and dogmatic, that you can't understand the difference?
You seem intelligent. Why don't you understand that concept? It's not rocket surgery.


I was talking about what bippy said which equals that man wrote the Bible and not God. Did you see the bold part.

Perhaps we should wait to see what he meant and not interpret for him y/:]


Stu here is what I meant .

Of course God wrote the bible inspired through man .
That regional flood was also an historical event so it would make sense that it would be recorded in other cultures . This makes what's written in the bible even more accurate historically . I don't see why this disproves that the bible is divinely inspired ?


The Bible says:

"4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

It says EVERY living substance, not a couple or some located in a region in this part of the earth, but EVERY. And these are Gods own words.

I checked several different versions of the Bible and all say EVERY. From this it is pretty clear that the flood was worldwide.


So what do you do in the face of the most clear and obvious demonstration
that there was no such flood?

Abc resorts to the most wickedly silly fantasy to get out of it. What is the brew of your choice?

User avatar
Stu
Senior Member
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Stu » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:27 am

Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Stu wrote:
RickD wrote:The young earth/global flood INTERPRETATION, isn't equal to Scripture. It's an interpretation of scripture, by man.

Surely you're not so narrow-minded and dogmatic, that you can't understand the difference?
You seem intelligent. Why don't you understand that concept? It's not rocket surgery.


I was talking about what bippy said which equals that man wrote the Bible and not God. Did you see the bold part.

Perhaps we should wait to see what he meant and not interpret for him y/:]


Stu here is what I meant .

Of course God wrote the bible inspired through man .
That regional flood was also an historical event so it would make sense that it would be recorded in other cultures . This makes what's written in the bible even more accurate historically . I don't see why this disproves that the bible is divinely inspired ?


The Bible says:

"4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

It says EVERY living substance, not a couple or some located in a region in this part of the earth, but EVERY. And these are Gods own words.

I checked several different versions of the Bible and all say EVERY. From this it is pretty clear that the flood was worldwide.


So what do you do in the face of the most clear and obvious demonstration
that there was no such flood?

Abc resorts to the most wickedly silly fantasy to get out of it. What is the brew of your choice?


What is this "clear and obvious demonstration"?
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:24 am

Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Stu wrote:
I was talking about what bippy said which equals that man wrote the Bible and not God. Did you see the bold part.

Perhaps we should wait to see what he meant and not interpret for him y/:]


Stu here is what I meant .

Of course God wrote the bible inspired through man .
That regional flood was also an historical event so it would make sense that it would be recorded in other cultures . This makes what's written in the bible even more accurate historically . I don't see why this disproves that the bible is divinely inspired ?


The Bible says:

"4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

It says EVERY living substance, not a couple or some located in a region in this part of the earth, but EVERY. And these are Gods own words.

I checked several different versions of the Bible and all say EVERY. From this it is pretty clear that the flood was worldwide.


So what do you do in the face of the most clear and obvious demonstration
that there was no such flood?

Abc resorts to the most wickedly silly fantasy to get out of it. What is the brew of your choice?


What is this "clear and obvious demonstration"?


There are a number of them.
For one, there is no "flood stratum' to be found. No geological evidence of such a flood.

That is betimes explained by a story that god cleaned up the evidence, so as not to leave physical proof of god; no faith needed then.

Probably the simplest to understand is the existence of polar ice far older than any possible date for said "flood".

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:24 am

xx

User avatar
Stu
Senior Member
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Stu » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:30 am

Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Stu here is what I meant .

Of course God wrote the bible inspired through man .
That regional flood was also an historical event so it would make sense that it would be recorded in other cultures . This makes what's written in the bible even more accurate historically . I don't see why this disproves that the bible is divinely inspired ?


The Bible says:

"4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

It says EVERY living substance, not a couple or some located in a region in this part of the earth, but EVERY. And these are Gods own words.

I checked several different versions of the Bible and all say EVERY. From this it is pretty clear that the flood was worldwide.


So what do you do in the face of the most clear and obvious demonstration
that there was no such flood?

Abc resorts to the most wickedly silly fantasy to get out of it. What is the brew of your choice?


What is this "clear and obvious demonstration"?


There are a number of them.
For one, there is no "flood stratum' to be found. No geological evidence of such a flood.

That is betimes explained by a story that god cleaned up the evidence, so as not to leave physical proof of god; no faith needed then.

Probably the simplest to understand is the existence of polar ice far older than any possible date for said "flood".


I suggest you watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZrxogY9Pnc

Watch it from the beginning, it seems to want to start from about the 25min mark.
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:26 am

Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
The Bible says:

"4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

It says EVERY living substance, not a couple or some located in a region in this part of the earth, but EVERY. And these are Gods own words.

I checked several different versions of the Bible and all say EVERY. From this it is pretty clear that the flood was worldwide.


So what do you do in the face of the most clear and obvious demonstration
that there was no such flood?

Abc resorts to the most wickedly silly fantasy to get out of it. What is the brew of your choice?


What is this "clear and obvious demonstration"?


There are a number of them.
For one, there is no "flood stratum' to be found. No geological evidence of such a flood.

That is betimes explained by a story that god cleaned up the evidence, so as not to leave physical proof of god; no faith needed then.

Probably the simplest to understand is the existence of polar ice far older than any possible date for said "flood".


I suggest you watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZrxogY9Pnc

Watch it from the beginning, it seems to want to start from about the 25min mark.


Dont have time for it.

If you understand it, you can summarize it. I dont do dueling vids.


I notice in the first few seconds that he goes with that his personal chosen reading of scripture in infallible.

As in "do you believe (my infallible reading of what I decided scripture says)
or what is plain as the nose on your face?"

User avatar
jenna
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby jenna » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:38 am

if you want evidence of a flood (without quoting the bible) you will find some here: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/eviden ... d=17884533
some things are better left unsaid, which i generally realize after i have said them

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:01 pm

jenna wrote:if you want evidence of a flood (without quoting the bible) you will find some here: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/eviden ... d=17884533



I personally find the black Sea recharge to be a very implausible basis
for the ark story, for a number of reasons.

One is that the recharge came with rising sea levels as the glaciers melted.

A trickle at high high tide, another trickle at the next. The rise in sea level from one year to the next was not likely to amount to much. The rising level of the lake would be something a plant could grow fast enough to stay ahead of it.

Also, it just does not remotely match the story. IF the black sea event is what the bible describes then it sure is fluffed up, with the word "water"
being about the only part that would be correct.

In any case, as I have noted elsewhere, you can add up all the evidence you like for an event, for someone's guilt in a crime, say.

But given one item that proves the person didnt do it (say he was on the space station when the murder took place in the slums of Nagoya) then
all the "evidence" of guilt is like, you know, null and void.

The polar ice proves there was no world wide flood. So...?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17187
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby RickD » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:16 pm

Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
So what do you do in the face of the most clear and obvious demonstration
that there was no such flood?

Abc resorts to the most wickedly silly fantasy to get out of it. What is the brew of your choice?


What is this "clear and obvious demonstration"?


There are a number of them.
For one, there is no "flood stratum' to be found. No geological evidence of such a flood.

That is betimes explained by a story that god cleaned up the evidence, so as not to leave physical proof of god; no faith needed then.

Probably the simplest to understand is the existence of polar ice far older than any possible date for said "flood".


I suggest you watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZrxogY9Pnc

Watch it from the beginning, it seems to want to start from about the 25min mark.


Dont have time for it.

If you understand it, you can summarize it. I dont do dueling vids.


I notice in the first few seconds that he goes with that his personal chosen reading of scripture in infallible.

As in "do you believe (my infallible reading of what I decided scripture says)
or what is plain as the nose on your face?"

Seriously Audie?

Time and time again, you ask people for evidence for a global flood. Then when Stu presents what he thinks is evidence, you dismiss it without even watching the video?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1400
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby crochet1949 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:23 pm

Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
So what do you do in the face of the most clear and obvious demonstration
that there was no such flood?

Abc resorts to the most wickedly silly fantasy to get out of it. What is the brew of your choice?


What is this "clear and obvious demonstration"?


There are a number of them.
For one, there is no "flood stratum' to be found. No geological evidence of such a flood.

That is betimes explained by a story that god cleaned up the evidence, so as not to leave physical proof of god; no faith needed then.

Probably the simplest to understand is the existence of polar ice far older than any possible date for said "flood".


I suggest you watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZrxogY9Pnc

Watch it from the beginning, it seems to want to start from about the 25min mark.


Dont have time for it.

If you understand it, you can summarize it. I dont do dueling vids.


I notice in the first few seconds that he goes with that his personal chosen reading of scripture in infallible.

As in "do you believe (my infallible reading of what I decided scripture says)
or what is plain as the nose on your face?"



I clicked into the video -- it was very good and scientific --and he was reading the Scripture passages -- very straight forward. He is pro - world-wide flood. Well worth watching / listening to.

bippy123
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:56 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby bippy123 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:38 pm

jenna wrote:if you want evidence of a flood (without quoting the bible) you will find some here: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/eviden ... d=17884533

Jenna that link talks about a regional flood not a global one

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby abelcainsbrother » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:59 pm

hughfarey wrote:Well, firstly can I say thank you so much for at last coming clean and actually presenting something.

However, I'm so sorry, but can you not see that none of this is evidence? It is an account, a listing of unsupported statements and consequences.

1) "before the flood the earth was mostly just hilly and did not have the tall mountains we now have" Have you any evidence for this at all? Is there any evidence that indicates a lack of mountains at any time in the past, or is this just wishful thinking to reduce the amount of water needed to cover them?

2) "The earth was not covered with 70 % of water but only had much shallower seas." This is a bit of a non-sequitur, if I may say so, and anyway logically unsound. The shallower the depth, the greater the surface area for the same volume. I think that the oceans of the carboniferous period were on average shallower than they are now, but then the water covered rather more than 70% of the earth's surface. Anyway, whatever the dimensions, the volume remains the same.

3) "Most of the water now on the earth came from inside the earth". Is there any evidence for this? Sure, even now there are rocks 'soaked' with water - a recent discovery has found a vast repository of such - but the total volume of it could not be more than a very small fraction of the oceanic total.

4) "from geysors that broke open shooting heated water up into the atmosphere". Again, you do not give any evidence for this, although there are plenty of geysers still around. The question is whether geysers could spew enough water into the sky in 40 days to flood the whole earth, and whether, as they spewed, the falling water would not seep back into the places where the geyser water came from in the first place.

5) "the weight of all of that water pushed down on the crust of the earth,for every action there is a reaction,but the weight of the water pushed the crust of the earth down forming the deep trenches we now have that holds all of that water." Again, you present no evidence for this. You seem to be suggesting that before the flood the continents were largely 'floating' on oceans of subterranean water, and that the flood caused the continents and the water to swap positions: is that correct? It is an entertaining proposition, and perhaps not wholly impossible in some circumstances, but is there any evidence that it's what happened on earth?

6) "This pushed the earth's crust down and the water level lowered all over the earth as the weight of the water settled pushing down on the crust". Well, no, it wouldn't, would it. Rock and water being largely incompressible, the total volume of the earth would be unchanged. The more the rock went down, the more the water it replaced would go up, so the water level would not be lowered but increased. Even if the rock was actually compressed, and the whole earth got smaller, the water level would still be increased.

7) "suddenly lowering a little more as it settled the water level lowered exposing the continents and land,but this also pushed up the continents and pushed up mountains.etc as the water level lowered from the weight of all of that water spewing out of the earth until it reached a level where the water could no longer spew out of the earth from the pressure of the weight of all of that water now on the surface of the earth." Try reading this to yourself. It really doesn't make any sense at all. I'm trying to envision water of a density greater than rock, pushing down on malleable rock so that the rock oozes upwards like the blobs in a lava-lamp? Is that what you think happened? Well, fair enough, but once again, have you any evidence for any of this?

Now before you jump in and say in breathless prose with no punctuation that I am dismissing your evidence because of my bias please understand that I'm not. I cannot dismiss your evidence because, as usual, you haven't presented any. You've told a story, but not even attempted to justify it with evidence at all. Hey ho. Back to the drawing board.




Do you believe comets brought the water that is on the earth and that the earth was a molten lava hell in its beginning? Because that science is changing based on zircon crystals and science now believes that the water on the earth came from inside the earth which would confirm the bible true.
http://www.geologypage.com/2014/12/stud ... cally.html


http://www.geologypage.com/2014/08/scie ... z3WdC2Xxcq


This is what the world wide flood hypothesis I go by says and that the bible says also like Genesis 2:6,etc.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:42 pm

RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
Audie wrote:
Stu wrote:
What is this "clear and obvious demonstration"?


There are a number of them.
For one, there is no "flood stratum' to be found. No geological evidence of such a flood.

That is betimes explained by a story that god cleaned up the evidence, so as not to leave physical proof of god; no faith needed then.

Probably the simplest to understand is the existence of polar ice far older than any possible date for said "flood".


I suggest you watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZrxogY9Pnc

Watch it from the beginning, it seems to want to start from about the 25min mark.


Dont have time for it.

If you understand it, you can summarize it. I dont do dueling vids.


I notice in the first few seconds that he goes with that his personal chosen reading of scripture in infallible.

As in "do you believe (my infallible reading of what I decided scripture says)
or what is plain as the nose on your face?"

Seriously Audie?

Time and time again, you ask people for evidence for a global flood. Then when Stu presents what he thinks is evidence, you dismiss it without even watching the video?


I can read fast. i cant watch fast. I dont care to discuss ideas via dueling youtube.

Also, I challenge you to find one (1) TIME I asked for evidence.

I have, tho, said many times and in some detail, that a mountain of evidence
comes to nothing if one fact disproves it. I didnt ask for evidence.

Seriously, ardie, you and phil and a couple of others who want to criticize me, that is fine. But when you have to make something up to have a complaint,
maybe you could just hold off till there is an actual topic? I mean, totally duh?


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest