More evidence of Noah's Flood?

[Enoch2021]

which fossils will be older?  Those lower in the geologic column or those higher.  Very intellectually dishonest question from you...was it for effect?

 

 

 

============================================================================

 

which fossils will be older?  Those lower in the geologic column or those higher.

 

Don't know, it's your story.

 

 

Very intellectually dishonest question from you...was it for effect?

 

Please stop with this nonsense

[gray wolf]

Oy veh! It's Jerry vs Enoch again. I love it!

[jerryR34]

 

which fossils will be older?  Those lower in the geologic column or those higher.  Very intellectually dishonest question from you...was it for effect?

 

 

 

============================================================================

 

which fossils will be older?  Those lower in the geologic column or those higher.

 

Don't know, it's your story.

 

 

Very intellectually dishonest question from you...was it for effect?

 

Please stop with this nonsense

 

Tell me how an older fossil can be higher in the strata than a younger one. 

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

_{Radiometric Dating Comprehensive Refutation (Start Here):} 

 

 

_{Your "crack" at radiometic dating is laughable.} 

Edited March 17, 2014 by jerryR34

[a-seeker]

 

Blessings Old School....

    I don't think so,that as far as "they "were concerned the whole earth as flooded.......the Scriptures are Gods Word,not by any interpretation of men(they were merely Gods "pen')So if the Lord says....the earth was flooded,then the earth was flooded......IMO     God Bless you

                                                                                                      With love-in Christ,Kwik

I find it odd that our God -- who goes to such great lengths so that men would follow Him of their own free will -- would turn His writers into nothing more than mere (automatic) pens?

And if all scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16), spiritual possession of its scribes is not only unnecessary, it's unbiblical.

Now as to the whole earth being flooded ...

"The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.

"First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood.

"Moreover, in this period of history, people understood the whole Earth as a smaller geographical area. There is no evidence to suggest that people of this time had explored the far reaches of the globe or had any understanding of its scope. For example, the Babylonian Map of the World,8 the oldest known world map, depicts the world as two concentric circles containing sites of Assyria, Babylon, Bit Yakin, Urartu, a few other cities and geographic features all surrounded by ocean ..."

http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood

 

First, I am not a 6dayer nor do I think the authors of the Bible were "just pens".  At the same time, the picture painted in Genesis 6-9 almost certainly covers what the ancients thought to be the whole earth "everything on the earth will die" 6:17.  The theme is decreation--God reverses the process described on day two when the waters below are separated from the waters above by a dome (sky).  In the flood the windows of the heavens are opened, thereby releasing the waters above, and the deep bursts releasing the waters below.  The narrative most certainly depicts all the earth being destroyed.  Whether or not the author knew how big the earth was is irrelevant to the central theme of decreation making way for new creation.

 

clb

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Still it's assuming bias.  I can fit all the evidence into a biblical time frame in a way that is completely logical.  The only illogical idea to me is how anything can happen on its own without the help of a Creator.  Even with millions of years scientists assume things happen, they still don't know why or how...just theories to support their naturalistic bias.

 

And again, when you look at fossils, you only ASSUME that a fossil lower in the ground is older.  As I pointed out, the smaller creatures that crawl and are slow would've been swallowed up first by sediment, followed by the faster animals, followed by the animals that could climb trees and hide from the flood where the reptiles could not.  How did the mammals survive the so-called comet/asteroid impact over the dinosaurs? 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

Tell me how an older fossil can be higher in the strata than a younger one.

 

No Problem....First establish how you differentiate between older and younger fossils?

[anthonyjmcgirr]

^ hey that's a good question!

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

Tell me how an older fossil can be higher in the strata than a younger one.

 

No Problem....First establish how you differentiate between older and younger fossils?

 

How would you?

[LookingForAnswers]

Still it's assuming bias.  I can fit all the evidence into a biblical time frame in a way that is completely logical.  The only illogical idea to me is how anything can happen on its own without the help of a Creator.  Even with millions of years scientists assume things happen, they still don't know why or how...just theories to support their naturalistic bias.

 

And again, when you look at fossils, you only ASSUME that a fossil lower in the ground is older.  As I pointed out, the smaller creatures that crawl and are slow would've been swallowed up first by sediment, followed by the faster animals, followed by the animals that could climb trees and hide from the flood where the reptiles could not.  How did the mammals survive the so-called comet/asteroid impact over the dinosaurs? 

 

 

which came first, you looking at all the evidence and assuming a 6000 year old earth or your reading the Bible and determining the Bible states the earth is 6000 years old?