Scientific evidence for Noah's flood

[Lcash]

One question for the Young Earth Creationists. Why are there no short half lifed radioisotopes in the earths crust? Short lived such as 2 million years.

Lcash

What's the matter? Answers in Genesis doesn't address this problem?

Lcash

[Guest Biblicist]

One question for the Young Earth Creationists. Why are there no short half lifed radioisotopes in the earths crust? Short lived such as 2 million years.

Lcash

What's the matter? Answers in Genesis doesn't address this problem?

Lcash

It probably does, you have access to their website same as I do. You can look it up same as I can. Good luck.

[Lcash]

Genesis 7

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.

18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. ,

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished

[WillingToDie]

Wait, so people who don't take the Old Testament to be literal, historical, scientific truth are heretics?

absolutely

if you are calling God a liar regarding Creation, why would you believe the resurrection? because it's still popular to do so? where is the "science" to support your position?

see, you can't play both sides

Wow, this is news to me. Have you taken a logic class? Or critical thinking? You clearly don't know what a strawman argument is, and you seem to be employing the ever-popular slippery-slope argument.

To answer your question: It's not calling God a liar if one recognizes that certain parts of the Bible are MEANT to be poetic and not scientific. There are other ways to read the Bible that don't make God out to be a liar.

[Lcash]

One question for the Young Earth Creationists. Why are there no short half lifed radioisotopes in the earths crust? Short lived such as 2 million years.

Lcash

What's the matter? Answers in Genesis doesn't address this problem?

Lcash

It probably does, you have access to their website same as I do. You can look it up same as I can. Good luck.

Well I guess the greeting was premature. I am not in a debate with AIG. I am though in a debate here on this forum where the only answers so far have been links to AIG.

Lcash

[Guest Biblicist]

Greetings Biblicist! How do you address the issue of ancient Hebrew writing such as Genesis that is as much poetry as it is history. It was their custom to write in a poetic style, not like our modern poetry, but using hyperbole and repetitive phrases such as evening and morning. It is not a stretch to say that Genesis is true but written in the Hebrew poetic style.

Lcash

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy are not considered books of poetry though, they are considered history. Do you respect, and trust, the history books written by men? Why not trust and respect the books of history written by God?

That's something I do not understand. Adults expect children to simply accept the words written in their history books, they themselves accept those very words, however flawed they may be. Yet when it comes to the Word of God, even Christians question every jot and tittle, doing their best to discredit it. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[WillingToDie]

Wow, this is news to me. Have you taken a logic class? Or critical thinking? You clearly don't know what a strawman argument is

I know exactly what it is, a misrepresentation of an opponent's position, raising an argument ancillary to the discussion, an argument which has nothing to do with the topic and is easily refuted

To answer your question: It's not calling God a liar if one recognizes that certain parts of the Bible are MEANT to be poetic and not scientific.

BUT NOT GENESIS!! Christ Himself refers directly to Genesis as literal history

If I, or any other poster here is misrepresenting your argument, I can assure you it is not intentional. Perhaps you should correct us as to what your position is, rather than shouting "strawman!" and moving on

Could you perhaps show me where he refers to it as a literal history? I'm admittedly not as familiar with the Bible as I once was.

[Lcash]

Greetings Biblicist! How do you address the issue of ancient Hebrew writing such as Genesis that is as much poetry as it is history. It was their custom to write in a poetic style, not like our modern poetry, but using hyperbole and repetitive phrases such as evening and morning. It is not a stretch to say that Genesis is true but written in the Hebrew poetic style.

Lcash

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy are not considered books of poetry though, they are considered history. Do you respect, and trust, the history books written by men? Why not trust and respect the books of history written by God?

That's something I do not understand. Adults expect children to simply accept the words written in their history books, they themselves accept those very words, however flawed they may be. Yet when it comes to the Word of God, even Christians question every jot and tittle, doing their best to discredit it. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

For your information, I do not question the writing of Genesis or any of the other books. However when I see evidence that the interpretation I have been taught is wrong i question the interpretation. So you see I am not nearly as evil as most YEC's believe. I do question the interpretation and one thing I have noticed among most YEC's is that they are of the opinion that not only is the scripture infallible (I agree there) but that their interpretation is also infallible (I do NOT agree there).

Lcash

[WillingToDie]

Could you perhaps show me where he refers to it as a literal history? I'm admittedly not as familiar with the Bible as I once was.

no problem

Matthew 19, Christ quotes Genesis directly

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I see nothing objectionable there. God made humanity, no Christian should deny that. I don't know of any who do, they simply differ on method of Creation.

[WillingToDie]

Genesis 2

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

So are you denying that the text places man ahead of the animals in the order of creation? If so, you are denying what is right before your eyes. It's simple. Man was alone, so God made the animals for man's companionship.

you're either incredibly thick or your reading comprehension is abysmal, what part of "had formed" (past tense) don't you understand?

"Had formed" has no bearing on the interpretation of the text. however, what does is "He brought them to the man..", implying that man was made first. Contrast this with Genesis 1:11-26, and you have two different orders of creation.