This One Thing Will Make You Believe in Noah’s Flood

[ChristB4us]

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

They are not proven, as in a mathematical proof. There are underlying assumptions in most scientific theories, although many of these assumptions appear to be very solid ones since repeated testing has not overthrown them yet. But there always exists that possibility. 

There is scientific proof and there is mathematical proof.  They do not call them the laws of science if they were not proven.

Quote

I think you are a bit out of date with making statements like 2nd Law disproves spontaneous generation as there is ongoing research around these issues that have demonstrated various lines of chemical evolution that could lead to the development of complex biomolecules. It's not my area of specialty but I've been recently paying some attention to it. The 2nd law is also for a closed system, but our planet is not a closed system. Localized decreases in entropy can be seen every single day.

Life is not going to come out of nowhere.  God spoke them into existence.  What has been set by God's words in calling it good means man did not evolve from an ape.

So straining at the gnat like science is doing is not going to get an intelligent design from random chemicals  coming together.

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance

"For the purposes of today’s column I will go through the probability  calculation that a specific ribozyme might assemble by chance. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300,  a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.

But life DID begin! Could we be missing something?"  end of quote

Yeah. God spoke them into existence.  

Quote

Macroevolution is simply evolution above the species level. Microevolution would be within species. Biological evolution is about the explaining the diversity of the life on earth. It assumes life exists as a starting point, so abiogenesis, while somewhat related, is not actually a feature of biological evolutionary theory.

Stephen jay Gould, an evolutionary scientist, judged that Gradual Macroevolution cannot be true because of the huge gaps in the fossil records of transitional fossils for why he postulated "Punctuated Equilibrium" or "Rapid Macroevolution".  He theorized that an explosion had to occur in the fossil record and that it had occurred in the Cambrian period.  He went on to say that a global flood had to tap that capacity.  Now when I had shared that, evolutionists did not argue the fact but said that he never said it was a global flood that covered the mountains which is true.  try as I might< I could not see what kind of a global flood that he said it was.

However, fossilized whale bones and other marine fossils have been found on the Andes Mountaintops buried with fossilized land animal bones together in the same sedimentary layer in one smooth gradient.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

The article explained how this had occurred for the marine fossils but neglected to shar how the land animal fossils were found with them together.

On top of that, there are other marine fossils on mountaintops all over the world and even a few for fossilized whale bones far inland too.

So either the land rose suddenly from the sea everywhere in the world at once or it is evidence of the global biblical flood.

So Stephen Jay Gould may not have stated that the global food covered the mountains but evidence says it did.

Just saying how "gradual macroevolution" had been debunked in favor of "rapid macroevolution" in that false science and yet they still cannot see the truth.

[ChristB4us]

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

I don't know how the intertidal life would survive the Flood, having a massive water column emplaced over them. I don't think much of the ocean life would be that safe in such a potentially active energy environment either. Just the time to settle out the suspended sediments of the ocean would cause complete havoc on many creatures.

Since the Bible is silent on that, it is pure speculation even in terms of what we know with freshwater fishes and saltwater fishes but some did survive obviously.

Quote

Are you suggesting that, for examples, geologists (i.e. me) should assume a Flood and then make interpret the evidence to fit this model? Maybe that's what the creationists do, but generally the researchers try to avoid that.

Are they not assuming that the evolution theory is true and that the geological evolutionary time chart is a legit as if it can be found anywhere on the planet as is?

Quote

I'd like to present a bit of an example...

On my current project, we have thick layers of volcaniclastics and volcanic flows, both deposited above water and below water, overlying shallow to deep marine sediments. The volcanic units we have drilled can extend at least 400 metres below the surface (and they are relatively flat-lying). The marine sediments can be thinner in places, but we have drilled up to 150 metres of thickness. These sediments can be very limy to sandy and do contain some fossils, mainly bivalve and brachiopods, but that's about it. The sediments are well-bedded in places with fining sequences indicating different depositional environments. As far as I can tell from the current creationists, these would be post-Flood sediments. The volcanics are also post-Flood. Although the volcanoes that were the source of these rocks are long gone (in the sense of a volcano we would recognize presently). There is a small cinder cone about 200km to the west that was active a couple hundred years ago. It was not responsible for the volcanics we observe.

Our gold vein and it's host structure cuts through all these different formations indicating that the vein was emplaced after the volcanics and sediments were laid down. A nearby granitoid intrusive is understood to be the heat source to drive the hydrothermal system that deposited the quartz and gold mineralization of the vein. Again, based on the current creationist timeline, this vein had to have formed sometime in the last couple of thousand years, and likely in the last couple of hundred (being generous). There is very little heat flow in this region, especially at the required temperatures and pressures to develop such a deposit. There should be some obvious indications of remaining hydrothermal activity.

If we assume all these are pre-Flood, we run into a timing problem as well, since that timeframe is even less than the post-Flood.

There are additional points I could make beyond just this tiny area of the earth that make the current creationist ideas untenable.

Unless it was all created in place, as-is, to look like a volcanic and marine deposit with a gold vein cutting through it. I suppose that is possible but introduces an element of deception into the creation and is untestable.

But when you consider that one land mass where all the waters was in one place;  ( mayhap the Pacific Basin for why it is so blue? ) and that something had to cause the global flood to break up the fountains of the deep, ( could the mid Atlantic Ridge be one of the areas where the fountains of the deep sprayed her mist to water the whole earth? ) dare we consider the asteroids impacts on the moon and on the earth as having occurred at the time of the Biblical global flood?

So what if that was true and the vast underground of the deep then vacant of her fountains, and over time, the weight of the land mass overhead dropped, thus dividing the one large land mass by what we call the Atlantic Ocean today?  Seeing that, makes me see how all the other areas of land had dropped into the ocean if not then in the days of Peleg, then over other times later on.  Evidence of buildings and temples as dropping into the sea can be found at various places around the globe.

Genesis 10:25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; 

So in light of those hydro thermal vents you are postulating on, was that taken in consideration as well?  Maybe when trying to ascertain anything geographical, it is untestable when considering all that chaos of the flood & the ensuing aftermaths.

Like "fabled" Atlantis sinking.  How many cities have they found underwater in the Atlantic Ocean which they had thought was the fabled Atlantis?  Makes me wonder if any of them was from the days of Peleg or before the global flood even.

[teddyv]

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So then, just to be clear, you don't believe that God created universe and everything in it at the same time, as Gen 1:1 indicates?  

Thanks.

That's a bit of a loaded question.

If you are specifically talking about Genesis 1:1, then, yes, I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. This should not be a controversial statement.

If you intended to extend that to the full creation narrative (i.e. a 6-day time frame, some 6000 years before present), then no, I do not believe that is an actual account of the formation of the universe or the earth.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

Sounds like a lot of unproven suppositions to me, but thanks for sharing your opinion.

Well, I can't read their minds nor have I listened into their board meetings. Dr. Snelling is a geologist and Flood geology is his main focus, hence, the issues that Cal Smith brings up in the video are most likely coming from Snelling.

[ChristB4us]

15 hours ago, BeyondET said:

A underwater mountain range isn't deep. Trenches are the deepest in the ocean. After WWI is when the deeps in oceans were named Trenches. Before that they were called deeps.

I believe all the sea was in one place which is the Pacific basin for why it is so blue and the rest of the world was that one large land mass.

So that Mid Atlantic Range was above water after the global flood before it dropped in the days of Peleg for when that one large land mass was divided.

Genesis 10:25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;

The Atlantic Ocean was not there at the time of the global flood as that mid Atlantic Ridge was formed by that range of hydrothermal vents that was watering the whole earth with that mist before the global flood.  It is the fountains of that deep beneath the Mid Atlantic Ridge that was above land before the global flood and for a time after the global flood until the days of Peleg for when it had dropped that I am referring to and not that mountain range as it is now underwater.

[LiveWire]

Here is something I saw then began working on myself:

 

I've been working on a Concept concerning when Moses was shown God's BACKSIDE, but not His FACE:

Exodus 33

21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

I believe this is God taking Moses back to the creation, what God has already accomplished. God was not willing to show his face, the future of what he would do for that nation of Israel. Earlier, Moses was pleading with the Lord to show him what would become of his people and that God would give them grace as they went forth.

13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.

14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.

15 And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.

16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

In this Concept, Moses is shown by God, the Creation, which Moses would later write down as he formatted the Torah.

 

 

Essentially, just as the Apostle John saw the FUTURE to Come in Revelation, Moses, when seeing the BACKSIDE of History, saw the actual Creation and wrote what he saw.

 

And, if we take by what we read in the Torah, and apply this to what Moses saw when God revealed His Creation to Moses.  It's clear, Moses, DID NOT SEE Evolution, but God SPEAKING things into Existence.

Edited June 10, 2023 by LiveWire

[FreeGrace]

58 minutes ago, teddyv said:

That's a bit of a loaded question.

If you are specifically talking about Genesis 1:1, then, yes, I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. This should not be a controversial statement.

If you intended to extend that to the full creation narrative (i.e. a 6-day time frame, some 6000 years before present), then no, I do not believe that is an actual account of the formation of the universe or the earth.

OK, thanks.  I believe the narrative in Genesis 1 is not about creation but rather restoration of a planet that became a wasteland, unfit for human life.

I believe that Adam was on earth roughly 6,000 years ago, but Gen 1:1 occurred long before that.

[FreeGrace]

26 minutes ago, LiveWire said:

In this Concept, Moses is shown by God, the Creation, which Moses would later write down as he formatted the Torah.

Essentially, just as the Apostle John saw the FUTURE to Come in Revelation, Moses, when seeing the BACKSIDE of History, saw the actual Creation and wrote what he saw.

And, if we take by what we read in the Torah, and apply this to what Moses saw when God revealed His Creation to Moses.  It's clear, Moses, DID NOT SEE Evolution, but God SPEAKING things into Existence.

Quite an interesting concept!  Yes, Gen 1:1 is what God spoke into existence;  heavens and earth.  That would be the entire universe.

Then, what follows is God restoring the planet for human use.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, thanks.  I believe the narrative in Genesis 1 is not about creation but rather restoration of a planet that became a wasteland, unfit for human life.

I believe that Adam was on earth roughly 6,000 years ago, but Gen 1:1 occurred long before that.

Yes. I should have known that based on your posts other threads elsewhere. I think we were discussing it as well.

[ChristB4us]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, thanks.  I believe the narrative in Genesis 1 is not about creation but rather restoration of a planet that became a wasteland, unfit for human life.

I believe that Adam was on earth roughly 6,000 years ago, but Gen 1:1 occurred long before that.

Scriptures were not originally divided by numbered chapters & numbered verses, this first creation account did not end until Genesis 2:3

So when you read from Genesis 1:1... that is why the following verses is about how God created everything in verse 1 for how it was concluded with "Thus" in Genesis 2:1

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

So read Genesis with that mindset that everything is actually being created as spoken into existence.

Genesis 1:2-5 is the creation of light of the day for that evening and morning that first day. Time has been created. The earth was not there at all but just water.

Genesis 1:6-8 is the starting of the creation of earth of gravity by dividing the water planet from the upper atmosphere.

Genesis 1:9-13 is the completion of the creation of earth with the one large land mass and the sea all in one place on that third day.

Genesis 1:14--19 was when the universe was created as God created them to give her lights to govern the earth that fourth day

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

That means the universe was not there in the beginning until that fourth day for God spoke and they came into existence filling the gaps with her lights to shine on the earth that day.

So can you tell the age of the universe and the earth by the speed of light? No. You cannot when in respect to His words that they did not exist nor had her lights shine on that earth until that fourth day.

So there was no universe, no sun nor moon, nor stars until that fourth day after the completion of creating earth that third day.