Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real Science Radio: Dr. Spencer Answers HPT Objections Pt. 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Real Science Radio: Dr. Spencer Answers HPT Objections Pt. 2

    Dr. Spencer Answers HPT Objections Pt. 2

    This is the show from Friday, February 12th, 2016

    SUMMARY:

    Bob Enyart concludes RSR's interview with Dr. Joshua Spencer, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, about Josh's email conversation with a leading creation geologist debating the fountains-of-the-great-deep hydroplate theory (HPT) model of the global flood as compared to the catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) model. Enyart and Spencer discuss the HPT's explanation of the origin of Earth's radioactivity. Beginning with last week's program they address 1) the false notion of Pangea 2) an objection that the HPT model can't explain the Appalachian Mountains 3) the frequent misunderstanding by its opponents of Dr. Walt Brown's HPT 4) the CPT idea that magma rising from the mantel produced the jets of water that rained down upon the earth 5) a denial that the CPT model depends on a series of ad hoc miracles to make it work 6) the majority-rules argument that creationists should trust CPT because more geologists support it than the HPT, and finally, 7) the assessment from this leading CPT geologist that the "HPT still gets a hearing in many circles. And CPT is not as widely well received as you might think."

    See Also:
    1. RSR's List of Answers to Hydroplate Objections Pt 1
    2. RSR's List of Answers to Hydroplate Objections Pt 2
    3. Dr. Josh Spencer Answers HPT Objections (email exchange with a CPT proponent)
    4. Dr. Spencer Answers HPT Objections Pt 2 (addressing the origin of Earth's radioactivity)
    - rsr.org/flood-model-verses draft spreadsheet called Flood Models & Bible Verses.
    Last edited by Jefferson; February 15, 2016, 10:30 AM.
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  • #2
    Here is a Police Report on that......

    https://youtu.be/uml9pKKBcj8

    Comment


    • #3
      The wisdom of man is foolishness with God

      Interesting. Both Flood model creationist camps are vehemently denying any aspect of the supernatural in the way of miracles causing or contributing to the Flood. So in ascribing purely naturalistic processes to the cause of the Flood you are thereby implying that it was not a divinely arranged judgement decreed by the Almighty on the sin prevalent in the world at that time. Your almost making it too easy for an atheist to believe in the Flood theory now, especially if there is a shift in the overall opinion of the age of the earth over the next few decades and the Flood theory gained a wider audience. Atheists might revise their thinking to accommodate the Flood, and you are giving them plenty of ground for their arguments by denying the Sovereign hand of God in His providence in personally bringing on the Flood and preserving Noah to continue the righteous seed for the promised Messiah. "Well it was all the gravity of the moon, and this pressure built up and we've got this whole thing figured out and God had no hand in this at all; nope, no miracles."
      This is the dangerous road the German higher critics embarked upon when they sought to find purely naturalistic explanations for the Exodus crossing and the miracles of Jesus. Be careful that even in your wisdom you don't discount the words of Scripture where God says, "For behold, I WILL BRING A FLOOD of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven."
      There may have been naturalistic processes involved, however you are playing the same game as the evolutionists in attempting to craft a purely naturalistic explanation for something that was clearly a sovereign act of the Almighty to judge the sin of mankind, and this is made clear all throughout the Bible.
      I believe that science supports scripture, however let us beware of ascribing too much to our own human reasoning in an attempt to defend God's word.
      Last edited by James Foard; March 5, 2016, 08:44 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Interesting. Both Flood model creationist camps are vehemently denying any aspect of the supernatural in the way of miracles causing or contributing to the Flood. So in ascribing purely natural processes to the cause of the Flood you are thereby implying that it was not a divinely arranged judgement decreed by the Almighty on the sin prevalent in the world at that time. Your almost making it too easy for an atheist to believe in the Flood theory now, especially of there is a shift in the overall opinion of the age of the earth over the next few decades and the Flood theory gained a wider audience. Atheists might revise their thinking to accomodate the Flood, and you are giving them plenty of ground for their arguments by denying the Sovereign hand of God in His providence in personally bringing on the Flood and preserving Noah to continure the righteous seed for the promised Messiah. "Well it was all the gravity of the moon, and this pressure built up and we've got this whole thing figured out and God had no hand in this at all; nope, no miracles."
        This is the dangerous road the the German higher critics embarked upon when they sought to find purely naturalistic explanations for the Exodus crossing and the miracles of Jesus. Be careful that even in your wisdom you don't discount the words of Scripture where God says, "For behold, I WILL BRING A FLOOD of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven."
        There may have been naturalistic processes involved, however you are playing the same game as the evolutionists in attempting to craft a purely naturalistic explanation for something that was clearly a sovereign act of the Almighty to judge the sin of mankind, and this is made clear all throughout the Bible.
        I believe that science supports scripture, however let us beware of ascribing too much to our own human reasoning in an attempt to defend God's word.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by James Foard View Post
          Interesting. Both Flood model creationist camps are vehemently denying any aspect of the supernatural in the way of miracles causing or contributing to the Flood. So in ascribing purely natural processes to the cause of the Flood you are thereby implying that it was not a divinely arranged judgement decreed by the Almighty on the sin prevalent in the world at that time......
          I believe that science supports scripture, however let us beware of ascribing too much to our own human reasoning in an attempt to defend God's word.
          James.....Thanks for the post, and many good thoughts. I agree with much but just want to clarify, or add a wee bit.
          I don't know if any of us deny the supernatural in the flood account. Without a shred of doubt.... the cause is God. However, God could have used caused the flood using natural mechanisms and laws He had established. IOW.... the earth may have been bombarded by meteorites during the flood. These meteorites may have been set in place back at the foundation of the world.
          Or, another example.....
          We can see the world has plenty of water to totally submerge the earth. The Genesis Flood account is consistent with the science without adding / subtracting miraculous amounts of water.

          However..... Your point is good, that we should be careful to always give God all the honour for everything.
          And... Should we ever be a little smug thinking we have it all figured out, then God has a little science test for us in Job 38 and 39
          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

          Comment

          Working...
          X