Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Proof of Noah's flood.


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#1
Taker

Taker

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Music, jokes, dancing (I specialize in the ironic), card games and board games.

Greetings, fellow Worthymen.

 

I recently got into an online debate with a very well informed atheist. He claimed that there was no scientific evidence to back up a global flood. He claimed that if a global flood happened roughly 4000 years ago it would be very easy to confirm with today's science.

 

I wasn't sure how to respond as I'm not really a scientist nor have I looked into weather or not there is physical evidence of an ancient global flood. I did point out to him that fossilized-seashells have been found atop mount Everest. His response was similar to this, "This point is of no surprise to me. Everest grows at roughly an inch each year. This is due to tectonic plates pushing one-another which is how most mountains are formed. It is very possible that hundreds of millions of years ago Everest's peak was below sea level."

 

So the question that I would like to have answered is this:

 

Is there scientific evidence of a global flood that happened roughly 4000 years ago?


  • 2

#2
Tristen

Tristen

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

Hi Taker,

 

I would first suggest that you avoid the term “proof” in your discussions. Proof isn’t really a scientific word. Only God knows everything. And we don’t know what we don’t know. Legitimate science can only claim to have a certain level of confidence in a claim – not to have proven a claim. Tomorrow some scientist could make a discovery that invalidates whatever we think we know (or can prove) now.

 

 

 

“He claimed that there was no scientific evidence to back up a global flood”

 

Claims that an opponent has no evidence are almost always nonsense. Consider that you provided evidence (marine fossils on Everest) to support your position. Now what the atheist disputed was how you interpreted that evidence – not the existence of that evidence. So to claim you have no evidence is self-evidently untrue.

 

 

 

“He claimed that if a global flood happened roughly 4000 years ago it would be very easy to confirm with today's science”

 

This claim assumes that the facts would be interpreted fairly. We all believe thing about reality which can’t be confirmed. I believe that the Bible is true – including the Genesis account of history. But I can’t take anyone back in time to show them what actually happened. Atheists believe that the universe exists without God – including the belief that the universe is billions of years older than the Bible claims. But they can’t take me back in time to show me what actually happened either.

 

Both our beliefs have limitations as to what can be accepted as truth. My belief says that any claim that contradicts the Bible cannot be true. The atheist belief (philosophical naturalism) says that any claim that includes God (such as the Biblical flood) cannot be true. These beliefs (sometimes called paradigms, or frameworks, or world-views) determine what we see when we look at the evidence; that is, these beliefs influence how we interpret the facts.

 

Interpreting “fossilized-seashells” on Mt. Everest as evidence of a global flood is a perfectly rational way to interpret these facts. A global flood would have contributed to massive geological upheaval – changing the face of the earth. During that period, mountain ranges would have risen much more rapidly than they do today.

 

But we must also recognise that interpreting these “fossilized-seashells” as coming from an ancient ocean floor is also a rational way to interpret these facts. If we assume that processes have always proceeded at the rate they do today (this assumption is called uniformitarianism), then it is reasonable to conclude that the top of Everest started on the ocean floor millions of years ago.

 

Since your opponent is an atheist operating within the naturalistic paradigm, his perspective does not permit him to consider our interpretations of the facts to be true. Likewise, since we adhere to the Biblical paradigm, we cannot accept their billions-of-years-of-history interpretations of the facts.

 

The only problem in today’s scientific discourse is that many atheists consider their position to be somehow more logically valid (or more scientific) than ours. We who believe the Bible can hopefully be objective enough to realise that we simply disagree with each other – because we each start at different faith perspectives. It’s the same facts, but different stories.

 

 

 

“Is there scientific evidence of a global flood that happened roughly 4000 years ago?”

 

Yes, there is an abundance of such evidence (which we interpret to be consistent with a global flood) – including “fossilized-seashells”.

 

I would recommend creation.com as a good resource for such information. Most of their articles are authored by highly credentialed scientists in the relevant fields of expertise.


  • 1

#3
rontiger

rontiger
  • Members
  • 11 posts

Good question Taker.(I'm going to use the boldface character- hope you don't mind.)

 

I know that Noah's Flood happened simply because the Word of Almighty God, the Bible, tells us.

 

Science is actually dead, as I explain below. Some scientists would like us to think that until they discovered their ( ever-changing) theories of physics, no father and son/daughter could play catch with a ball: since  playing catch involves gravity(general relativity), Newtonian mechanics and Q.E.D.( quantum physics) AND now " dark energy."

 

Wow, before Isaac Newton discovered gravity, our ancestors were not smart enough to play catch with a ball! All those home movies of the 1950s to 1971, showing families playing catch, were done by  special effects,  until 1971, when the Standard Model of physics was more or less completed. Really?

 People give too much credit to science - which is completely dependent on the opinion of fallible scientists, who all have  limited intelligence, writing their impossible to prove ideas in peer-reviewed-change-their-opinion-with -the-next-theory journals.

 

(By the way gravity and dark energy - and a lot of other physical phenomena- still do not make any sense to the Standard Model of Physics or string theory physics.

 

(Furthermore String Theory physics began by using the mathematics of Leonhard Euler. Euler believed in Jesus as Savior and God. Euler also believed in the inerrancy of the Bible.)

 

Techniques or technology are not truly based in human-invented science.

 

Technology simply is discovered when humans (using Jesus' creations, the brain and intelligence) play, or tinker around with the things that have already been created by the Almighty.

 

Science can never understand completely or even remotely,  what  happens in a game of catch with a ball! I'll give the reason a bit later.  

 

Having said that, there is an interesting effect Jesus created called water cavitation.

I was partly convinced( but this is just a theory, remember the Bible  is the only perfect proof) that Noah's flood occurred because Noah's flood is the best explanation of Earth's surface features such as  the  deep Grand Canyon.

 

Noah's Flood water was moving extremely quickly at certain times and areas during the Flood and caused an effect- called water cavitation. When normal water travels very fast it will produce special  tiny bubbles because of water cavitation. 

 

The temperature of these water cavitation "special  tiny bubbles" can reach 15 000 degrees Celsius or 27 000 degrees Fahrenheit - hotter than the surface of our Sun .Water that is moving 90 feet per second(about 40 miles per hour) destroys solid steel and hard stone.{ref . source:[this paragraph only] David Catchpool, Creation.com}

 

The Grand Canyon was created water cavitation in about 3 to 6 days, not through water erosion.

 

Water cavitation is ten trillion times [ 10 000 000 000 000] times as powerful as the very slow water erosion.

 

And Taker, the greatest mathematician of recent times, Kurt Gödel, discovered the Incompleteness Theorem, which proves science can never understand the universe .Science is dead.

 

The Incompleteness Theorem is the most important discovery in mathematics ever. Kurt Gödel was a true baptized Lutheran Christian.He read the Bible at least every Sunday.

 

 And anyways, Jesus Christ is infinitely smarter than any scientist ,because he is Almighty God. Do not be even slightly impressed by dead science.

 

Sincerely, Rony .


Edited by rontiger, 05 July 2014 - 07:51 PM.

  • 2

#4
Cletus

Cletus

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 635 posts
  • Gender:Male
A very well informed athiest.... psalm 14:1

No matter what you say they will have some sort of rebuttle to explain it away. Dont waste your time.
  • 2

#5
Schouwenaars

Schouwenaars

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Flanders
  • Interests:Judo, badminton, science (especially quantum mechanics), ancient greece, philosophy

@rontiger  I find it very amusing that you first use science to try to prove your point, and you say science is dead a few lines later.

 

Besides, Kurt Godel didn't proof science cannot understand the universe. He only proved that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure"  is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers, and that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. However, science is much more than that.

Maybe you should first take a better look at what he really says.

 

If water erosion can create hills, mountains and valleys, why can't it not form the grand canyon? And even if it didn't form the grand canyon, it surely did form thousands of mountains and valleys. If you don't believe that, you should go and take a look at the valleys in switzerland. It's pretty clear there. In every valley there is a river in the middle, that has formed the valley.

 

Then the ultimate question: what exacly do you call science?


Edited by Schouwenaars, 30 June 2014 - 04:47 AM.

  • 2

#6
Paradox

Paradox
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male

Greetings, fellow Worthymen.

 

I recently got into an online debate with a very well informed atheist. ...

I wasn't sure how to respond as I'm not really a scientist nor have I looked into weather or not there is physical evidence of an ancient global flood. ...

 

So the question that I would like to have answered is this:

 

Is there scientific evidence of a global flood that happened roughly 4000 years ago?

 

Its a case of "not seeing the forest for the trees."

 

If you put your face in the dirt like paleontologists do you get a dirty face,

 

but if they would stand back a little, they would see that 99.99% of all landscapes have sedimentary layers.

Just look at the road cuttings on the way to fossil land.


  • 2

#7
Taker

Taker

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Music, jokes, dancing (I specialize in the ironic), card games and board games.

 

 

If you don't believe that, you should go and take a look at the valleys in switzerland. It's pretty clear there. In every valley there is a river in the middle, that has formed the valley.

 


Don't valleys typically have rivers running through them? Water has a tenancy to collect in valleys due to gravity. I'm not saying water erosion couldn't cause massive changes over millions of years I'm just saying that if a valley already exists wouldn't it be logical for rain-water to collect there and form a river?

 


  • 1

#8
Paradox

Paradox
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male

Satellite pictures of earth show wind and water erosion, on a large scale, now dormant, and on a smaller scale for thousands of years after the deluge.

 

You get the typical large valleys, and then the little streams marking the landscape.

 

Have you heard that the Grand Canyon was formed by the creek at the base? Hmm. Hardly.


  • 1

#9
Schouwenaars

Schouwenaars

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Flanders
  • Interests:Judo, badminton, science (especially quantum mechanics), ancient greece, philosophy

 

 

 

If you don't believe that, you should go and take a look at the valleys in switzerland. It's pretty clear there. In every valley there is a river in the middle, that has formed the valley.

 


Don't valleys typically have rivers running through them? Water has a tenancy to collect in valleys due to gravity. I'm not saying water erosion couldn't cause massive changes over millions of years I'm just saying that if a valley already exists wouldn't it be logical for rain-water to collect there and form a river?

 

 

You can test erosion yourself: take a bag full of sand and make a height difference. Then let water flow from the high side to the lower side. If you continue to do this some time, you'll see that the water makes a deep hole and that, if you capture the water, there will be transported sand too. Now imagine this on a larger scale and over millions and millions of years. And there you have your valley! :)

 

And yes the rain water is also collected in the river, wich makes it even more powerfull, so that the proces goes faster.


  • 1

#10
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA
http://www.chem.tuft...er/grandcyn.htm   Creationist Grand Canyon Argument

 

Creationists claim that there is geological evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed as the result of one, or at most a few, flash floods that occurred when water in a huge lake was suddenly released when a lava dam broke. They claim the process was basically the same as the Mount St. Helens eruption, which created a deep channel down one side of the mountain. This, they claim, supports their belief that all of the earth's major geological features were brought about by catastrophic events that occurred in a relatively brief period of time. They argue that their explanation of the formation of the Grand Canyon is supported by the evidence, whereas evidence indicating that it was formed by slow erosion over millions of years is either missing or contrived by proponents of "evolutionism." However, any reasonable evaluation of the physical evidence shows conclusively that the creationist position is completely without foundation.

When Mount St. Helens erupted, one side of the caldera was blown out, and the resulting rush of water from melted snow, plus the blast of hot ash, carved out 300 feet of recently laid loose ash and sediment. area.

To view a topographic map of Mount St. Helens, click here, then click on "Get a Map" and type in latitude = 46.2007 and longitude = -122.1918. Click on "Map It." View at 1:25,000 and also at 1:50,000. The topo map clearly reveals that this washout, described by creationists as a "miniature Grand Canyon," is in fact a large blowout quickly spreading to a wide, shallow channel at the foot of the caldera.

For additional information, click on this talk origins faq.

An excellent publication for the layman is GRAND CANYON the Story Behind the Scenery, by Merrill D. Beal, published by K C Publications, P.O. Box 94558, Las Vegas, NV 89193. This is a 9" x 12" soft cover, 64 page publication with topographic maps and many large color photographs.

The Colorado River is 1450 miles from its source to the Gulf of California. It has four main tributaries: the Little Colorado, San Juan, Dolores, and Green Rivers. The Green River is the main tributary, arising in Wyoming and traveling 720 miles to join the Colorado, 1100 miles above its entry into the Gulf. The Colorado River system is characterized by meandering courses with many U turns. In this respect it is similar to the Mississippi River system. So why does the Colorado system consist of deep gorges while the Mississippi is essentially flat? Because the Colorado River has cut into, and is still cutting into, a rising rocky plateau. The average load of suspended solids carried is almost 400,000 tons per day. [p. 8, Beal publication] This includes heavier material pushed along the bottom. The Colorado acts like a giant conveyor belt, carrying the material to the delta at the Gulf of California. The harder rock walls remain vertical, while the softer rock erodes to form a sloping wall. The Grand Canyon system high plateau extends over thousands of square miles. The geology of this plateau consists of horizontal layers of different kinds of solid rock. Starting at the top and going down, these layers are:

Kaibab Limestone: 300 feet thick, formed in a marine environment. Fossils include molluscs, crinoids, and brachiopods.

Toroweap formation: 200 feet thick, varying from predominantly sandstone to limestone.

Coconino Sandstone, 50-300 feet thick. Sandstone formed from desert sand dunes. Numerous reptile tracks preserved in the sandstone.

Hermit Shale: 300 feet thick. Siltstones formed from deposits in swamps and lagoons.

Supai group: 600-700 feet thick; plant fossils indicate a depositional environment that was low and swampy. Abundant evidence of cross bedding.

Redwall Limestone: 400-650 feet thick. Abundant fossil evidence of crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans typical of a warm, shallow clear ocean.

Temple Butte Limestone: 100-1000 feet thick. Limestone converted to dolomite.

Mauv Limestone: 150-800 feet thick. Limestone with green micaceous siltstones.

Bright Angel shale: 250-450 feet thick. Shaly green mudstones, with some fine grained sandstones. Many fossils of trilobites, brachiopods, and worms. Gradual transition to overlying Mauv Limestone.

Tapeats Sandstone: 100-300 feet thick. Formed from coastal sand dunes.

Grand Canyon Supergroup: 15,000 feet thick. Angled layers (10 to 15 degrees) of sedimentary rock and interbedded lavas eroded to a horizontal surface prior the deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone.

The fossils occurring in these deposits indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old, and represent life forms that do not exist today. Limestones are formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine creatures. There is absolutely no way that these creatures could have laid down deposits hundreds of feet thick in the one year period of the Genesis flood.

There is no evidence to support the creationist contention that the limestone deposits were formed from "chemical rich waters," and no reasonable explanation of how this could have happened. The enormous quantities of limestone present would require concentrations of calcium ions and depths of water entirely beyond any possibility of existing at any one time. They had to be formed slowly over millions of years as microorganisms extracted the dilute concentrations of carbon dioxide present in sea water to form the calcium carbonate which is the main constituent of limestone. Furthermore, there is no mechanism, and creationists have not provided any, to show how the huge quantities of calcium carbonate (limestone) could have been precipitated, especially in the short time frame alleged by young earth creationists.

The geology clearly shows that the Grand Canyon formations were deposited in an environment which existed as a flat coastal marine area for hundreds of millions of years. This region began to be uplifted at the end of the Paleozoic era. At the same time the existing meandering river systems began to cut down into the rock, keeping pace with the uplift over the ensuing millions of years. The Colorado River acted as a "conveyor belt," carrying the material, as it gradually eroded from the canyon walls, into the Gulf of California.

The amount of rock removed was hundreds of cubic miles. Hundreds of cubic miles of SOLID rock! Just to transport that amount of rock (to say nothing of removing it) would require a flash flood consisting of thousands of cubic miles of water! There is no evidence whatever that such an enormous body of water ever existed at an elevation sufficient to result in a flash flood. We are dealing with a flat plateau. Where was the elevated source of all that flash flood water?

Furthermore, how could a flash flood create a meandering river system with four tributaries and numerous U turns in a flat plateau? Did each tributary have its own source of flash flood water?

Faced with the impossible task of explaining how all that rock could be removed in one or at most a few flash floods, creationists have concocted the theory that the Grand Canyon formations were originally mud laid down at the time of the biblical Genesis flood, and the canyons were washed out from these mud deposits by water trapped in some fashion and then released as a flash flood after the flood waters receded. All this is postulated to have taken place only a few thousand years ago.

This theory does not explain the steep vertical walls and numerous U turns of the canyon system. Mud does not have the strength to permit vertical walls to be formed by a flash flood, or to divert raging flash floods spreading over a level plain to form meanders and U turns.

 

Weirdly, creationists consider the Mount St. Helens/Grand Canyon argument one of their best examples of refuting "evolutionism." For more information on the Genesis flood argument, click on: Genesis Flood

 

For detailed photographs of the Grand Canyon and additional information, click on Jon Woolf's Grand Canyon website.

For additional detailed information comparing the Grand Canyon to "Young Earth" creationism, click on Jon Woolf's revised and expanded web site


  • 1

#11
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

 

 

Is there scientific evidence of a global flood that happened roughly 4000 years ago?

Hi

 

I personally focus on the PT boundary as the flood layers.  This was the transitionary period between a low topography wet and cool world full of swamplands to a more mountainous dry and hot world full of dinosaurs. 

 

For many years this period was discarded as flood layering due to the fact it is was known as a period of low sea levels. More recently they have discovered that this was a high sea level moment. The greatest extinctions known in history occurred at this boundary. Most of the large pre-boundary amphibians could not survive the dry and hot post-boundary world, but the world was suddenly filled with.... wait for it.... previously amphibuous reptiles. Its like tons of reptiles and sea crocodiles crawled onto continents and found them devoid of life, and rapidly adapted to fill all the ecological niches, hundreds of years before Noah's mammals were populous enough to expand out of the Arabian peninsula.

 

All over the world this Permian-Triassic boundary has signs of flooding. Large portions of the flat continental interiors have evidence of a major marine transgression. (sea-flooding). The previously swampy world was followed by a lacustrine environment (large lakes suddenly appearing on landscapes just after the great extinction).  Nearly all previously terrestrial geological layers have signs of a sudden mud layer which contains ash (worldwide volcanic activity). Within the mud layer is nearly always found a layer of fungi. Which is a sign of a mass die off of vegetation.  Just below the mud layer worldwide are huge coal deposits which represent the massive forests and jungles that occurred before the mass extinctions.

 

There are also what is referred to as non-conformities, where entire Permian layers are missing from the geological record. these are normally acknowledged by geologists as massive regressions. A sudden reversal of large volumes of water going back into the sea. This removes all evidence of flooding, but in itself is a sign of previous flooding that suddenly reversed as water levels dramatically receded. 

 

Many late Permian layers (just before the great extinction) show disarticulated fossils (broken fossil skeletons). These are definitely pre-boundary types of animals but reflect a sudden and widespread catastrophe that wiped them out.

 

Scientists have long debated the cause of the PT boundary extinctions, the cause isn't as clear as the later  KT boundary (dinosaur) extinctions which all have an iridium layer which points to a large meteorite collision with earth. The PT boundary is debatable, but most agree that the events were affected by the Siberian traps, large volcanic activity in Siberia which melted the ice caps and extensive Southern glaciation, causing sea levels to rise. In addition continental interiors were dominated by very large flat flood plains during the Permian, and all these flood-plains show a sudden transition from a sedimentary underfill situation to a sedimentary overfill situation reflecting a dramatic increase of worldwide sedimentation during the PT boundary. Most vegetation disappeared during this period, and scientists assume that the loss of vegetation caused the increase of the sedimentation. Of course a worldwide flood would have caused both simultaneously. The massive volcanism of the PT boundary would have seeded the misty water laden atmosphere of the Permian world, causing massive rainfalls and also sea level increases due to the melting glaciation and ice caps.

 

So next time someone says where is the evidence of the flood, it is at the Permian -Triassic boundary when the world transformed from amphibians and cold glaciers and ice caps to a warm dry world of  previously amphibuous reptiles dominating the landscape.


  • 1

#12
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

 

 

Tapeats Sandstone: 100-300 feet thick. Formed from coastal sand dunes.

Grand Canyon Supergroup: 15,000 feet thick. Angled layers (10 to 15 degrees) of sedimentary rock and interbedded lavas eroded to a horizontal surface prior the deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone.

There is no evidence to support the creationist contention that the limestone deposits were formed from "chemical rich waters," and no reasonable explanation of how this could have happened. The enormous quantities of limestone present would require concentrations of calcium ions and depths of water entirely beyond any possibility of existing at any one time. They had to be formed slowly over millions of years as microorganisms extracted the dilute concentrations of carbon dioxide present in sea water to form the calcium carbonate which is the main constituent of limestone. Furthermore, there is no mechanism, and creationists have not provided any, to show how the huge quantities of calcium carbonate (limestone) could have been precipitated, especially in the short time frame alleged by young earth creationists.

The geology clearly shows that the Grand Canyon formations were deposited in an environment which existed as a flat coastal marine area for hundreds of millions of years. This region began to be uplifted at the end of the Paleozoic era. At the same time the existing meandering river systems began to cut down into the rock, keeping pace with the uplift over the ensuing millions of years. The Colorado River acted as a "conveyor belt," carrying the material, as it gradually eroded from the canyon walls, into the Gulf of California.

 

 

I maintain this limestone was formed pre-flood.  As time goes on creationist predictions that rock forms rapidly have been repeatedly confirmed. Most of your assumptions about the age of rocks and the time it took for them to form is based on illogical radiometric dating assumptions.


  • 1

#13
j102

j102

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:cali
  • Interests:depends on my mood :D
I don't believe in a global flood, there are more species of animals on planet earth than what could of fit inside Noah's ark even when its just a breeding pair ( oh and don't forget the unclean animals that was on the ark too). If you get a concordance and do a word study on the flood you will find the word earth doesn't just mean the planet but it also means the dirt beneath your feet and also the local area around you. Don't take my word for it, do the research for yourself but just have an open mind. God doesn't want us to be ignorant of these things.
  • 1

#14
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

I don't believe in a global flood, there are more species of animals on planet earth than what could of fit inside Noah's ark even when its just a breeding pair ( oh and don't forget the unclean animals that was on the ark too). If you get a concordance and do a word study on the flood you will find the word earth doesn't just mean the planet but it also means the dirt beneath your feet and also the local area around you. Don't take my word for it, do the research for yourself but just have an open mind. God doesn't want us to be ignorant of these things.

 

Could you kindly give a breakdown of the number of original species there were on the ark, and the average space they would have each taken and compare this with the floor area of all the levels of the ark. From this basis we can determine the accuracy of your claims.


  • 1

#15
Trinitron

Trinitron

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Gender:Male

I've never understood the scientific explanation of how there is sea fossils on the highest mountain tops around the world.  If those were the high points of land, wouldn't they always have been the high points and wouldn't they always have been above the sea level?


  • 1

#16
Paradox

Paradox
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male

I've never understood the scientific explanation of how there is sea fossils on the highest mountain tops around the world.  If those were the high points of land, wouldn't they always have been the high points and wouldn't they always have been above the sea level?

Good point. It is amazing though, how flexible the earth is under billions of tons of moving water. The earth bends to accommodate the oceans, and would also bend down if they shifted.

These catastrophic tendencies exist all the time but are kept in check by God using several methods mentioned in the Bible.

 

One of these is the atmosphere which through varying pressure systems helps distribute ocean levels and assists in stimulating ocean currents. The ocean has to be continuously distributed because it has a tendency to do what your washing machine does with heavy towels in spin dry.

 

Once it gains a certain momentum and the smallest uneven distribution, it is impossible to stop destroying the earth.

 

Re to local v's global, it took 120 years of hard labor to build the ark etc, Why did Noah and his family not migrate with a few camels and in a couple of months be safe and sound in another land? Why collect a sample of every pedigree species?


  • 2

#17
j102

j102

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:cali
  • Interests:depends on my mood :D

I don't believe in a global flood, there are more species of animals on planet earth than what could of fit inside Noah's ark even when its just a breeding pair ( oh and don't forget the unclean animals that was on the ark too). If you get a concordance and do a word study on the flood you will find the word earth doesn't just mean the planet but it also means the dirt beneath your feet and also the local area around you. Don't take my word for it, do the research for yourself but just have an open mind. God doesn't want us to be ignorant of these things.

 
Could you kindly give a breakdown of the number of original species there were on the ark, and the average space they would have each taken and compare this with the floor area of all the levels of the ark. From this basis we can determine the accuracy of your claims.
.

Can you? Other scientists have done the math and have concluded that it is impossible taking into account the size of the ark for a breeding pair of each animal species.

Also how do you explain how all the different animal species spread around the globe when all the continents are separated by vast amounts of water?
  • 2

#18
Paradox

Paradox
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male

In my day scientists said that during an atomic explosion, all you need to do is "duck and cover." 

 

So you don't need a group of men with poor domestic habits to think for you, just get a pen and paper, write down all the basic types of animals, check their size and how much room they need, storage space, and human spaces etc.

 

Work out the size of the ark using the older larger cubit about 21 inches. It has three basic floors, plus mini floors not mentioned as floors because they are rooms above floor level. 


  • 1

#19
coheir

coheir

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tn
  • Interests:Hunt, Fish, shoot pool, snooker read kjv read Worthy

I don't believe in a global flood, there are more species of animals on planet earth than what could of fit inside Noah's ark even when its just a breeding pair ( oh and don't forget the unclean animals that was on the ark too). If you get a concordance and do a word study on the flood you will find the word earth doesn't just mean the planet but it also means the dirt beneath your feet and also the local area around you. Don't take my word for it, do the research for yourself but just have an open mind. God doesn't want us to be ignorant of these things.

Trying to understand so I may need help; here is what I take from this post.

you don't believe in a global flood, even though God inspired someone to

write it down.

That first sentence leads me to think you do not believe an ark was built because

you also do not believe there was enough room on it from the measurements God also inspired someone to write down. Would I be wrong if I thought you also do not believe Noah even existed; he is part of the same book that describes the ark and its measurements.

without a concordance or word study and only a 12 grade education I already knew the

dirt beneath my feet was part of this planet called earth.

Last I am worried there may other parts of the Bible you do not believe.

If I received something other than what you said; help me get it right.


  • 1

#20
j102

j102

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:cali
  • Interests:depends on my mood :D

I don't believe in a global flood, there are more species of animals on planet earth than what could of fit inside Noah's ark even when its just a breeding pair ( oh and don't forget the unclean animals that was on the ark too). If you get a concordance and do a word study on the flood you will find the word earth doesn't just mean the planet but it also means the dirt beneath your feet and also the local area around you. Don't take my word for it, do the research for yourself but just have an open mind. God doesn't want us to be ignorant of these things.

Trying to understand so I may need help; here is what I take from this post.
you don't believe in a global flood, even though God inspired someone to
write it down.
That first sentence leads me to think you do not believe an ark was built because
you also do not believe there was enough room on it from the measurements God also inspired someone to write down. Would I be wrong if I thought you also do not believe Noah even existed; he is part of the same book that describes the ark and its measurements.
without a concordance or word study and only a 12 grade education I already knew the
dirt beneath my feet was part of this planet called earth.
Last I am worried there may other parts of the Bible you do not believe.
If I received something other than what you said; help me get it right.


No you would be wrong about me. I do believe in a real Noah and a real major flood just not that it was global.
Why would you think that I don't believe parts of the bible. Remember scripture says "we see through a glass darkly" the bible is true but is our understanding and interpretation of scripture always correct? The answer to that question is a clear no for we are only human and subject to error.
  • 1




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network