The Flood is proof of the Creation

[JudgeRightly]

Of course. But 3500 is the more stringent standard, while easily met with a volcano eruption only 1% of that time ago.

3500 years ago is around the time of Moses. Definitely wasn't a flood at that point in time.

It matters. Don't let blueboy trick you into conceding the argument by using his standards instead of the Bible's.

 

[Right Divider]

Of course. But 3500 is the more stringent standard, while easily met with a volcano eruption only 1% of that time ago.

3500 is just wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

That said, I am conflicted when reading the work of Walter Brown.

Why?

I do not accept his various hypothesis, his science is not convincing,

Instead of spouting your vague opinions, give some actual arguments as to why.

but I do believe in Creation, that not a single aspect of transmutation, or evolution is accidental, I do not accept than humans are in any way accidental and that our exceptional sentience is a direct result of us having an eternal spirit. No part of natural order is a mutational accident, in this regard I do not accept the material findings of science, nor the literal accounts of Genesis.

So what do you "accept" and WHY?

If every drop of moisture suspended in our atmosphere fell all at once, which is about 3,100 cubic miles, or .001 of the water on earth, it would raise our oceans about 1 inch. The water contained within the earth is about 1.7% of the volume above ground, so unless we suspend all known science and claim the Flood was totally miraculous, it's just not possible for such a flood. And if a Flood did occur, where is the water now, the planet is not an empty sponge.

You clearly have not read Dr. Brown's book. Please do and then come back.

 

[Right Divider]

Then there's asteroids bringing water and a pseudoscience concerning sediments laid down after the Flood, etc. You simple can't subvert real science to substantiate that which science clearly refutes.

So again, your opinion sans facts.

So you are left only with a miracle.

Nope... that is your STRAW-MAN.

The water was a result of a miracle and was then removed after the planet was destroyed.

Nope... that is your STRAW-MAN.

As for my original post, I stand by most of what I said in the context of the difficulties of communicating fully on such a forum.

The difficulties communicating are all on you. We communicate just fine.

 

[7djengo7]

I do not accept the material findings of science​

Is it rational to use the word, "findings," in reference to something you say you do not accept? I mean, if your "science" really does find that X is true, then why would you not accept that X is true? If you find, contrary to the dictum of your "science," that X is not true, then how could it be rational to call "X is true" a "finding"? Since God created the heaven and the earth, your "science" has never found, and never shall find that God did not create the heaven and the earth. Since the earth is spheroidal, and not a disc, nobody's "science" has ever found/shall ever find that the earth is a disc.

And, insofar as so-called "findings of science" are not findings, the so-called "finder(s)" thereof are not science, nor scientific. Where the proposition, P, is false, whatever mental and physical ("experimental") activities ("methods") one engages in while getting himself to a point at which he is willing to believe (or at least say he believes) that P is true, such thinking and procedures are necessarily not science/not scientific.​

 

[Derf]

3500 years ago is around the time of Moses. Definitely wasn't a flood at that point in time.

It matters. Don't let blueboy trick you into conceding the argument by using his standards instead of the Bible's.

Are you saying no sedimentary rock has formed in the last 3500 years?

3500 is just wrong.

"3500" has no truth value.

 

[Right Divider]

"3500" has no truth value.

Yes, it does. There were two choices: one is wrong; one is right.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you saying no sedimentary rock has formed in the last 3500 years?

I'm talking about when the Flood occurred, which would have laid down MOST of the sedimentary rock we see today that evolutionists claim was laid down by millions of years. THAT was ~5300 years ago, NOT 3500 years ago.

 

[7djengo7]

I'm talking about when the Flood occurred, which would have laid down MOST of the sedimentary rock we see today that evolutionists claim was laid down by millions of years. THAT was ~5300 years ago, NOT 3500 years ago.

About 3,500 years ago a flood of sorts laid down some sedimentary Egyptians who just couldn't leave well enough alone.

 

[7djengo7]

Words are written down in science publications as well and they are done so by highly educated scholars and are not Faith based, or a canon of belief from a religious tribe.

Really, how could the ad homines non-argument you're trying to hand us, here, ever be of any use to you? Especially when your audience is not the least bit impressed by your reverently calling those from whom you take your cue, "highly educated scholars"? Your reverence for those whom you choose to call "science," "scientists," "experts," etc., does not entail that what they say to you (and what you, in turn, eagerly parrot) is true.

Oh, and what "evidence" do you have to back up your silly claim that what your heroes write down in "science publications" is "not Faith based"?

 

[Derf]

I'm talking about when the Flood occurred, which would have laid down MOST of the sedimentary rock we see today that evolutionists claim was laid down by millions of years. THAT was ~5300 years ago, NOT 3500 years ago.

That wasn't what I was talking about, which you will see if you read my post to blueboy. He specifically says there has been no sedimentary rock laid down in the last 3500 years. whether that's the date of the flood or not is immaterial.
Here's his post excerpt I quoted, where he said nothing (in that paragraph) about when the flood was:

So, yes, I do know what a sedimentary rock is, how it is formed and approximately how long such rocks take to form. They most certainly did not form in the last 3,500 years. And I do know a little about the various materials and events that form these rocks.

Here's my posted reply, where I said nothing about when the flood was:

You should read more widely. Sedimentary rock has indeed formed in the last 3500 years Here's a place to start:

30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens

On May 18, 1980, a tremendous landslide on the northern side of Mount St. Helens in Washington state uncapped a violent volcanic eruption, completely altering the surrounding landscape. It is the most studied volcano in history and has reshaped thinking regarding catastrophic earth processes...

www.icr.org

An interesting excerpt from it:
"Because of the Mount St. Helens eruption, scientists know that sedimentary rock layers can form in only hours, rather than requiring millions of years."

Be careful about reading something into people's words, please.

By the way, as I stated, I haven't expressed an opinion about when the flood was. 5300 years ago seems too long, but 3500 years ago seems too short, for the reasons you mentioned. I usually think of it being about 1600 years after creation, with creation about 6000 years ago, give or take. That would put it about 4400 years ago, or 2400 BC. But I don't have a specific need for it to be then.

Yes, it does. There were two choices: one is wrong; one is right.

"3500" comes with no choices. It's just a number. It isn't "right" or "wrong" until there's a statement that includes the number. You may search my posts for statements about 3500 and see if any of them are "right" or "wrong" if you like, but "3500" is not a statement and carries no intrinsic truth value. If you find a statement that you think is wrong in my posts, please quote it and let's talk about it.

 

[Derf]

The difficulties communicating are all on you. We communicate just fine.

That's somewhat debatable, shown in your posts to me.

 

[blueboy]

Really, how could the ad homines non-argument you're trying to hand us, here, ever be of any use to you? Especially when your audience is not the least bit impressed by your reverently calling those from whom you take your cue, "highly educated scholars"? Your reverence for those whom you choose to call "science," "scientists," "experts," etc., does not entail that what they say to you (and what you, in turn, eagerly parrot) is true.

Oh, and what "evidence" do you have to back up your silly claim that what your heroes write down in "science publications" is "not Faith based"?

Interesting post. It's always about attacking the person - silly claims, my heroes, eagerly parrot, my reverence, ad hominies. Not sure why you feel so challenged that you have to respond the way you do? It may be that there is a long history of trying to defend the indefensible that has made you so irascible.

It makes no difference how much you cling to these literal beliefs, they do not define Christianity, they only define Christian Creationist's beliefs. The world has moved on. These beliefs belong to a previous age before we were able to examine their symbolic meaning in light of our ever growing understanding of Creation by the aid of science, which is also a gift from God.

 

[blueboy]

Are you saying no sedimentary rock has formed in the last 3500 years?

"3500" has no truth value.

I'm not trying to trick anybody. I'm looking for understanding. If the Flood as claimed was not 3,500 year ago, or thereabouts, when was it? I see 4,350 years ago gets a mention.

I read that complete article regarding Mt St Helens from that Creationist site, there is nothing in the aftermath that supports, or offers evidence of a possible global flood 4,350 years ago.

I do thank you though, because it led me to read a couple of scientific articles about the area which were interesting. They did not reach the same conclusions as the Creationist site.

 

[7djengo7]

It's always about attacking the person

made you so irascible.

Why do you feel it needful to make a personal attack on me by calling me "irascible"?

 

[blueboy]

Why do you feel it needful to make a personal attack on me by calling me "irascible"?

I don't feel a need to suggest you are irascible, you make that clear and obvious in the way you post back to me. And I do understand that this is your comeback, but you need to work on it a bit more.

I just don't want to be the cause of any unpleasentness for you. If my posting causes you discomfort, which it seems to be doing. I will just move on. I have no intention of bothering you.

 

[7djengo7]

I read that complete article regarding Mt St Helens from that Creationist site, there is nothing in the aftermath that supports, or offers evidence of a possible global flood 4,350 years ago.

You seem to have fast forgotten why @Derf linked to the article in the first place. You had stupidly made this false claim, remember:

So, yes, I do know what a sedimentary rock is, how it is formed and approximately how long such rocks take to form. They most certainly did not form in the last 3,500 years. And I do know a little about the various materials and events that form these rocks.

And, in the article you say you read, we read a refutation of that falsehood you tried to hand us:

And a 1982 dam breach of the snow-melt lake that had formed in the mountain's crater caused a catastrophic flood that tore a gash through those fresh deposits from two years earlier. To this day, the resulting steep-sided canyon walls can be seen, showing that horizontal sediment layers hundreds of feet thick were formed within hours during the eruption.

So, do you now want to continue on in your stupidity by asserting, again, that sedimentary rock layers "most certainly" take over 3,500 years to form?

 

[7djengo7]

I don't feel a need to suggest you are irascible, you make that clear and obvious in the way you post back to me. And I do understand that this is your comeback, but you need to work on it a bit more.

I just don't want to be the cause of any unpleasentness for you. If my posting causes you discomfort, which it seems to be doing. I will just move on. I have no intention of bothering you.

Oh, OK. So long. Don't forget to not write.

 

[Derf]

I'm not trying to trick anybody. I'm looking for understanding. If the Flood as claimed was not 3,500 year ago, or thereabouts, when was it? I see 4,350 years ago gets a mention.

I read that complete article regarding Mt St Helens from that Creationist site, there is nothing in the aftermath that supports, or offers evidence of a possible global flood 4,350 years ago.

I do thank you though, because it led me to read a couple of scientific articles about the area which were interesting. They did not reach the same conclusions as the Creationist site.

I'm glad you're willing to read about it. Yes, I'm sure there will be dissenting views, but the fact is that sedimentary rock HAS formed less than 3500 (or 5300 or 4350 or whatever) years ago. And if it can form that quickly (in a few decades), it could have formed that quickly the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. Mt St Helens supports the shorter ages of the strata, and provides a glimpse into the mechanisms active with Noah's flood that lead to it being a workable hypothesis for the more voluminous strata we see all over the world today. Assigning millions of years to strata because "science" says it takes millions of years to form is a religious belief instead of real science--you're trusting the scientists, who may have their own agenda, instead of the evidence itself.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Direct evidence is a tad hyperbole, don't you think.

Nope. It is, in fact, direct evidence of a flood.

I'm assuming that Fred and your good self imagine that sedimentary rock is evidence of the Great Flood?

Because it is.

Now there are a great many works and studies as to the processes and times required to form sedimentary rock and they tend to be millions of years, not 3,500, which as you know is a geological blink.

And those "works and studies" are wrong, because they assume millions of years, rather than starting with the evidence and following it wherever it leads.

No sedimentary rock has formed by events that have occurred in the last 3,500 years.

False.

You do not need me to demonstrate the truth of this,

You're the one making the claim, therefore the onus is on you to support it.

as a Christian and therefore a lover of truth, you will never allow yourself to be held back from the truth,

Whatever that means...

so in the next few days you will have completely cleared up any misconception you have about sedimentary rocks, unless of course you look for your truth within Creationist publications and who knows what beliefs might lead to.

Have you ever considered that the misconceptions are on your side, not ours?

There are some very interesting studies on the area and formation of the Black Sea, which may very well be the genesis of the Flood story.

Newsflash: It's not.

It's likely that this myth was deeply ingrained in the cultural history of this area

Except that's not the case.

and was used to illustrate the consequences of not obeying the word of God. Spiritual death via materialism, self and passion was projected as death by drowning in a great flood.

Oh great, more new-age nonsense.

Please understand I do not reject anything written in the OT, or the Bible for that matter, as nonsense,

Yes, you do. You reject Genesis as a literal history of the world because you think it's nonsensical for the earth to have been formed in only six days by a living, loving, personal, relational, and good Creator, and thus also think that a flood that lasted half a year that wiped out all flesh that breathed save 8 people is nonsensical. You are also on record as rejecting Revelation as literal.

on the contrary, the stories provide a kind of immediate teaching for some in a literal form and richer teaching for others who see them as symbolic works.

They do provide teaching, but not because they're "in a literal form" or "symbolic works."

I shall address my responses to you if you don't mind as your friends are all singing from the same hymn book as you anyway.

So you're intentionally ignoring other members simply because you don't like the fact that they're in agreement with each other?

Are you perhaps feeling overwhelmed?

Maybe the question you want me to have a go at is, "do you know what a sedimentary rock is?"

He asked other questions too, you know.

It may be the question asking me to provide evidence of the things Creationists have claimed to be evidence and yet have been better explained by the scientific method?

Yes, that was another request. Maybe try responding to more than just one. Questions AND people, for that matter.

So, yes, I do know what a sedimentary rock is, how it is formed and approximately how long such rocks take to form.

Clearly not, based on the rest of your posts in this thread.

They most certainly did not form in the last 3,500 years.

Some have.

But regarding the rocks in question:

Your statement uses the same line of reasoning for rejecting the Exodus of Moses and the Israelites from Egypt. "It didn't happen in 1270 BC, therefore it never happened," yet no one questions that it didn't happen there. The problem is that they're looking in the wrong year, and then when they don't find anything there suggesting an Exodus, they give up and say it must not have happened. It's a non-sequitur that allows them to reject that the Exodus ever happened without confronting the mountain of evidence that says it happened closer to 1500 BC.

In a similar fashion, saying "Sedimentary rocks weren't laid down in the past 3500 years, therefore the flood never happened" is a non-sequitur, because it's simply the wrong year for the flood to have happened. 5300 years ago is about when the Flood occurred. Therefore, you should be looking at the evidence for it happening 5300 years ago, not 3500 years ago.

@Derf, this is what I'm talking about, and why it's so important to get the numbers right.

And I do know a little about the various materials and events that form these rocks.

Clearly not.

As for the various items posed as evidence for a global flood, they are many and varied. There is no point me identifying what is proposed as evidence because in truth none exists.

In other words, you're not willing to give evidence that you think better supports millions of years rather than a flood. Got it.

And even had such a flood taken place we would most assuredly not be sitting in comfort debating the literal, come symbolic meanings of Genesis, because the earth and its eco-systems could not recover to this extent in 3,500 years.

There's that non-sequitur again. "It couldn't have happened 3500 years ago, therefore the flood never happened!"

And the problem with people like yourself is that they either underestimate the power of the flood (as you have already done by claiming it was the Black Sea) or they overestimate the power of the flood (by saying the earth would have never recovered to the extent we see today).

As I have already pointed out (which you ignored, seemingly intentionally), the weather and storms and earthquakes and tsunamis and all the natural disasters we see today ARE A RESULT AND THE AFTEREFFECTS OF the Flood. Even the rotation of the earth, the face of the moon, the debris scattered throughout the solar system, all of it is the result of the flood.

That said, I am conflicted when reading the work of Walter Brown.

Conflicted? Because it goes against everything you've been taught?

I do not accept his various hypothesis,

The HPT is a theory, not just a hypothesis.

his science is not convincing,

That's because you've hardened your heart against the truth.

but I do believe in Creation, that not a single aspect of transmutation, or evolution is accidental,

Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Evolution (molecules to man) never happened.

I do not accept than humans are in any way accidental and that our exceptional sentience is a direct result of us having an eternal spirit.

Whatever that means...

No part of natural order is a mutational accident,

Then you need to reject evolution, because that's exactly what it is.

in this regard I do not accept the material findings of science,

Evolution is not science, only theory that has been falsified, yet its tenets cling to it like the religious dogmatists they are.

nor the literal accounts of Genesis.

There is nothing random about the events described in Genesis, nor are any of them a result of "mutational accidents."

If every drop of moisture suspended in our atmosphere fell all at once, which is about 3,100 cubic miles, or .001 of the water on earth,

Correct.

it would raise our oceans about 1 inch.

Probably.

The water contained within the earth is about 1.7% of the volume above ground,

Yes, and?

so unless we suspend all known science and claim the Flood was totally miraculous,

There was nothing miraculous about the Flood, other than God supernaturally creating the earth to be capable of one long before it occurred.

Just because there's not enough water in the atmosphere doesn't mean there wasn't a flood.

it's just not possible for such a flood.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Your premises are correct, but your conclusion doesn't follow because it doesn't consider all the evidence.

And if a Flood did occur, where is the water now,

It's in the oceans.

the planet is not an empty sponge.

Correct. It's made of rock and dirt and water and organisms

Then there's asteroids bringing water

Asteroids are mostly rocky rock piles, with very little water in them.

And any rock that comes from space that gets caught in Earth's gravity well is simply debris returning to it's place of origin, because it was launched 5300 years ago at the flood into space.

and a pseudoscience concerning sediments laid down after the Flood, etc.

There's no pseudoscience concerning sediments.

And they weren't laid down after the flood, but during it.

What is your "etc" supposed to be referring to?

You simple can't subvert real science to substantiate that which science clearly refutes.

Stomping your foot and demanding that your position is correct doesn't make it so.

And our position IS scientific. It can be tested.

So you are left only with a miracle.

Nope. No miracles involved in the Flood, other than God saving Noah and his family on an ark full of animals.

The water was a result of a miracle and was then removed after the planet was destroyed.

Straw man.

That might work in your anti-Bible circle of friends, but it won't work here.

The Flood was the result of a pressure build-up that started several centuries prior when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden.

Such a miracle then removes the free will humans were given so as to choose right from wrong and be rewarded accordingly.

I don't agree, but not because I think that the Flood was miraculous. But this is a topic for a different thread.

The other point of interest is that humans across any later age to the Flood were probably living even more sinfully than a small group in the Middle East and yet God seems to have ignored this.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Humanity was most sinful during the time between Cain being confronted by God and God flooding the earth with water.

The flood was global, not just local to the Middle East.

God certainly didn't ignore the wickedness of man during that time. It's WHY He flooded the earth.

As for my original post, I stand by most of what I said in the context of the difficulties of communicating fully on such a forum.

People can communicate just fine on a forum.

Some people just choose not to.

I'm not trying to trick anybody. I'm looking for understanding. If the Flood as claimed was not 3,500 year ago, or thereabouts, when was it? I see 4,350 years ago gets a mention.

For the umpteenth time now:

The flood occurred about 5300 years ago, around 3290 BC, give or take 100 years.

We know this based on both scientific evidence AND Biblical evidence.

I read that complete article regarding Mt St Helens from that Creationist site, there is nothing in the aftermath that supports, or offers evidence of a possible global flood 4,350 years ago.

The point was to show you that sedimentary rock can form in a short period of time, that it does not have to form over millions of years. That alone is evidence for a flood laying down mile deep layers of rock.

I do thank you though, because it led me to read a couple of scientific articles about the area which were interesting. They did not reach the same conclusions as the Creationist site.

Of course not. Why would you be swayed when you read comforting words from people who reject the Bible as you do?