B
buffalo
Guest
Cannot let the Divine foot in the door…
- Status
F
Farsight001
Guest
Again, putting words in peoples’ mouths and avoiding the issues. Please address what was actually said.
P
pnewton
Guest
This caused him to be the first to propose the theory that the Genesis flood was localized.
P
pnewton
Guest
I don’t have a problem with this per se, until they start trying to derive theology from their theories. Cosmology is really bad about this. The thing is, archeologist that rely either on their faith or their atheism can produce questionable results.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
But he could be wrong. Perhaps the evidence he found there is that of a world wide flood, but the movement caused by plate tectonics shifts, earthquakes, mountains rising, etc. which scientists say happened are the explanation why this layer of mud has not been found in other places, it was destroyed by these events.
This layer of mud raises some questions: what was so special about this flood that it left a layer of mud? Is this the only “local flood” in the history of the world? If not, why other floods leave no layer of mud?
As an example of this lack of evidence (so far) in other places can be similar to this: we are told that millions of years ago dinosaurs dominated the land, with so many varieties and so many of them, but all are extinct now. Up to this day there has been no discovery of dinosaur fossils in the region of the world where I live. Does it mean that dinosaurs were local just in other areas of the world? This lack of fossils is also true in all the countries in Central America and most countries in South America with a few exceptions. So, since there are no dinosaurs fossils in this region of the world one could conclude that there were never dinosaurs in Central America. But, is this conclusion true?
We can either have evidence, or lack of evidence, and with that make all sort of propositions that can explain why we have the evidence or don’t have it. But that doesn’t mean we have the truth. So a layer of mud in Iraq is not enough to say that that flood was local.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, it simply means that pretty much all of Central America and most of South America is from the Cenozoic Era. One can only find certain fossils in the certain strata.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
The problem I see is that we are told that scientists that have faith commit the crime that they base their conclusions on their faith, the result being that they are discarded from the start. It’s like this:
- Scientist & believer = conclusions wrong
- Scientist & non believer = conclusions right
P
pnewton
Guest
While that can certainly happen, do not think that is what I was saying. In fact, I made it clear that atheist too can let their bias affect their work.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
There is a chain of mountains from Alaska all the way to Chile in South America. So it would appear that North and South America were formed at the same time. Also there are fossils in the USA and there are fossils in Argentina, which would also point to being formed at the same time.
Strata is not uniform, some fossils have been found in newer strata than theirs. So there are holes in the strata theory as well. As I understand the fossils in Argentina have been found on the surface whereas in other places fossils are buried. There is no uniformity and that leads some scientists to question all these theories. Which in my view confirms what I have said, that these sciences are not exact, therefore we should not discard some conclusions based on the theological belief of the scientist.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
I wasn’t implying that you said that. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough, what I meant is that in the scientific community if you’re a scientist and a believer your conclusions will be considered wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
Not dependable as this shows:
Gingko trees supposedly lived 240 million years ago, but are not found in rock layers representing millions of years, yet they are alive today. Conclusion: Just because they are absent in strata does not mean they were not living during millions of years it took the layers to form.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Ridiculously oversimplified, buffalo, and only expresses your ignorance of the subject.
There are thousands of rock layers, some in some places on earth, others in others. In some areas, they are worn away or overturned or folded or compressed. Gingkos did not live over the entire planet, so it is obvious that they would not be found in all rock layers, and if they thrived in certain climates over others, than the presence of fossils would be less likely. (swamps are great for preserving fossils, while arid, sandy deserts are not, for example)
The point being, absence of gingko fossils in certain geologic layers is not evidence of anything you seem to be trying to imply.
Now if you don’t mind, I have already requested that you address what a previous poster actually said instead of changing the subject twice. This is the third time. Please address the issue instead of changing the subject.
C
catholictiger
Guest
My view is that the flood wasn’t worldwide, but to the people it seemed like a worldwide flood. So for example if you lived in New Orleans and it was all that you knew when Katrina can you would think the entire world had flooded. The same thing that happened Genesis I believe.
N
number2wilkins
Guest
well of course it really happened…
but then again, since some scientists think it’s too unlikely to have actually occurred, then of course it didn’t really happen…
i mean, to think a world wide flood is actually possible? that’s like thinking a virgin gave birth…
but then again, some Christians believe God was able to somehow accomplish that little feat, so of course, the flood must have really happened!
but then again, since some scientists think it’s too unlikely to have actually occurred, then of course it didn’t really happen…
i mean, to think a world wide flood is actually possible? that’s like thinking a virgin gave birth…
but then again, some Christians believe God was able to somehow accomplish that little feat, so of course, the flood must have really happened!
P
pnewton
Guest
I am going to bow out of the geology debate, as I believe in plate tectonics, radioactive dating, etc., but yes, both varying strata and the presence of mountains have good explainations.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
There is not enough evidence that Jesus instantly turned water into wine or calmed a raging sea so we probably shouldn’t believe that either. 
God is saying, pick and choose the miracles of your liking or the ones that SEEM to make sense to YOU.
God is saying, pick and choose the miracles of your liking or the ones that SEEM to make sense to YOU.
P
pnewton
Guest
Realize that no one here is questioning whether or not God could flood the entire world, but rathe did God flood the entire world. Since God created the universe from nothing (Catholic doctrine), he could have created water from nothing, then made it disappear. He is God. However, since the flood is not a matter of the deposit of faith, there is nothing wrong to considering scientific evidence.
The virgin birth, on the other hand, is dogma.
B
buffalo
Guest
Important to remember - many geologists don’t want evidence for a flood.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
The ten commandments are a required belief and Catholic doctrine but the man who was given them, Moses, underwent a miracle, the Red Sea parting, that many are as skeptical about as the flood. So I see your logic as dicey.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Actually, back in the day, most geologists were devout Christians, so they did want evidence for a global flood. The fact that they found extensive evidence against one is precisely why so many consider it just regional today.
Now please address what was asked of you. This is the 4th time now you have posted without even acknowledging what others have said to you.
- Status