Jump to content

one.opinion

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    1,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

387 Excellent

4 Followers

About one.opinion

  • Rank
    Diamond Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,474 profile views
  1. I agree with this, but I don’t know of any experiments designed to figure God out. Experiments and observations only show us - a little bit at a time - more about what He has made. Sometimes, that accumulated information shows us that we were mistaken about what the Bible teaches. Notice, I am not saying the Bible is wrong, I am saying that our understanding of it can be wrong. Science has proven that the heavens are not supported by pillars, the sky is not a solid dome, the sun does not revolve around the earth and, I believe that science has also shown that Noah’s flood was not global and that God did not create the universe and everything in it in 144 hours about 6,000 years ago.
  2. Thank you so much for choosing to recognize this despite our differences in viewing the evidence. Personally, my priority is Jesus Christ. My views on life origins take a distant seat to that. I am entirely comfortable with my view, and I trust you are, too. I don’t see the benefit in hashing over our differences of opinion, so let us simply enjoy our shared love for our loving, powerful, and amazing God. Grace and peace
  3. To you, as well, Tzephanyahu. Thank you for sharing the link. I looked at the evidences listed, but have so far only looked at “Evidence for water activity at the highest peaks on earth”. I would like to pause there and examine the evidence. As you are likely aware, the presence of fossils (even of the marine variety) at high elevations is not uniquely explained by the hypothesis of a global flood. In fact, I would argue that the presence of marine fossils on high peaks is more consistent with with an ancient earth and life model. Let’s examine explanations from these two models. 1. Young earth/global flood A relatively recent flood occurred. Some marine organisms were able to float or swim through 20,000 feet or more to reach high mountain peaks, only to be buried by sediment not at their typical low elevation. 2. Ancient earth/ancient life model Marine organisms were buried in sediment at roughly the same elevation at which they lived. Long after the fossils were originally formed, plate tectonics caused massive shifts in the topography of the planet, including the rise of tall mountains over very long periods of time. Which of these models do you believe is best supported by evidence? Some of the other lines of evidence from the link are also consistent with an ancient earth/ancient life model. But we can discuss those also, if you’d like. It is my opinion that God’s Word is completely true AND God’s revelation about the natural world through scientific discovery is also true. If the two seem to be in conflict, it is because we fallible humans have interpreted one or the other incorrectly. Since the preponderance if evidence favors an ancient earth and ancient life, the common interpretation of the Bible suggesting that all of God’s creation occurred in a 144-hour period roughly 6,000 years ago is incorrect. As a side note to anyone following this conversation - my belief does not prevent me from understanding God’s omnipotence, my sinfulness, His incredible sacrifice in the person of His Son, His glorious resurrection, and my life now as a joint heir with Christ. My acceptance of scientific evidence does not demean the God I love in any way. The more I understand about what He created, the more I appreciate His transcendent mind and power.
  4. Did either of them actually hypothesize that splashing floodwater reached the moon?
  5. I believe it happened. I just also happen to think that the flood wasn't a global event, as many modern people reading an English translation assume. We are now far removed from the culture and language of the original audience. My belief is in no way contradictory to belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God, or God-inspired scripture.
  6. I perused the article and found nothing related to evidence of splashing water reaching the moon. Was there a particular portion of the article that I am missing? Or any evidence described elsewhere?
  7. I asked earlier "Are there primary research articles that discuss the sedimentary rock and why is is evidence of a global flood?" That was probably an unfair question. Instead, let me ask about any primary research articles that refer to large areas of sedimentary rock that support at least a large flood. I'm sorry, @Who me, but creation.com articles are not primary research articles. Christ-following geologists have written a book that you might find interesting - The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth. You can read an excerpt here - https://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--grand.pdf
  8. I started reading your response, but ran into this complete quackery pretty quickly and gave up on the rest. This assertion is completely unsupported by evidence from science or the Bible. Someone made this up - probably as a story for their 4 year-old child.
  9. The fire and brimstone dropped on Sodom and Gomorrah was a "precision attack", while a large flood was not. Perhaps preserve members of ecological communities? Perhaps preserve the portion of His creation that was innocent? I don't know. I'm not a geologist. Are there primary research articles that discuss the sedimentary rock and why is is evidence of a global flood?
  10. Yes. I don't think it does. The "whole earth" at the time of authorship was considerably less than what we now know. Also, if the flood was of the extent you assume, I believe there would be clear evidence of it. That evidence is missing.
  11. Thank you, Still Alive, I appreciate Michael Heiser's approach to a lot of different issues. This was my favorite part of the article: If someone carefully reads and still accepts a global flood, that's fine. But do it with a spirit of humility that doesn't judge a fellow Christ-follower as someone that doesn't believe the Bible because they have a different view.
  12. This could reasonably apply to a smaller geographic area. There could also be intentional hyperbole present in the language. To me, what God has revealed in both His Word and nature are both true. When the physical evidence is so completely contrary to a truly global flood, then the truth of the Bible must be something other than a global flood. Yes, the English used in many translations of the original text uses "nostrils". However, some translations refer to "everything that breathes". Regardless, the original text does not delineate exactly what does or does not have nostrils. Nostrils could indicate other breathing mechanisms aside from a human-like nose. This also suggests that hyperbole could be involved here. The impact on ecosystems, especially with the loss of plant life that would have occurred, would be irrecoverable. The plants that are the producers of virtually all terrestrial ecosystems would have been wiped out. It is not that simple. We are not the original recipients of the text - it was not in our language, and not in our comprehension of the world. This brings up another major hurdle for the global flood view. The rapid diversification of species since the flood would have had to happen at unprecedented rates to give rise to the variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects that we see today. Those responsible for the Ark Encounter ran into this issue and essentially imagined prototype animals that they put into the ark display. These imaginary animals had to be the precursors for modern animals. Yes, and it's the best interpretation of the available evidence. As a former educator, I assume you understand what a PhD degree in geology or paleontology would entail. A vast majority of Christians that have earned advanced degrees in these fields interpret the fossil record just as a non-Christian would. Bold text does not make an assertion any more accurate. You can read more about a few transitional series here - http://www.transitionalfossils.com/.
  13. I believe it is much more likely that the flood account in Genesis refers to a large, devastating, regional flood, and not a global flood. The original Hebrew language does not clearly indicate the entire globe. A global flood that covered the tallest mountain peaks on the planet would constitute an irrecoverable ecological catastrophe, both for terrestrial and aquatic life. No, that isn't what Genesis says. It says everything "with the breath of life", and we cannot be certain what that means. "Breath of life" could very well mean "spark of life" and refer to everything living. Assuming that only animals with a nose died in the flood goes beyond what is stated in the Bible. It is impossible that a global flood of the proposed magnitude would leave sea life untouched. The salinity levels of the ocean would have been severely altered. That's a fun story, but doesn't fully match conditions of the flood. Try submitting the gourd to the violent conditions of an earth-covering flood, leaving it underwater for a year, and then try to grow something from the seeds. It is a much different scenario. Sure, some seeds would beat the odds and survive, but not enough to re-establish communities after the water receded enough. Why are there so many fossils of marine organisms if they were untouched by the flood? Even if you admit that marine life would also have been devastated, that strata of marine organisms does not support a massive die-off in a 1-year period (read about ammonite fossils here) Additionally, the plant fossil record shows an extremely different view. How would they possibly sort themselves out with ferns and cycads at the bottom and angiosperms on top? Why are large modern animal fossils not seen mixed with large dinosaur fossils? The much more likely explanation is that fossils really do represent different times on the planet for different organisms. I absolutely agree that God can do anything. However, I see no good explanation for why God would make a fossil record that would only LOOK like evolution occurred over hundreds of millions of years. You can read much more about geological evidence - here. I assume you mean atheistic scientists here. There are numerous Christians in both geology and paleontology, and very few find what they believe to be solid evidence for a global flood. You packed an incredible amount of irony into this statement.
  14. My mistake, I didn’t realize that responding to your post would be considered a “hijack of the thread”.
×
×
  • Create New...