• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

The Flood is proof of the Creation

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A virgin birth is perfectly rational given that God exists and can perform such a thing.

Without God, it IS irrational.
As a miracle apart from natural law, yes.
As per natural law it is not.
In other words, science does not match scripture in that case, so I don't try to make science and scripture match up.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Again, do you have some problem with Dr. Brown's starting assumptions? Other than that they are assumptions.
I don't have a problem with any anyone making assumptions as long as it is realized as assumption, because assumptions of how an event took place are not evidence.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I don't have a problem with any anyone making assumptions as long as it is realized as assumption, because assumptions of how an event took place are not evidence.
Who claimed that the assumptions were evidence of what took place?

His assumptions are based on what the Bible claims/says took place. Everything else in the theory is based on verifiable science.

Again, is there any problem with the HPT?
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
Then make science line up with a supernatural virgin birth.
Thing is, He was conceived, in an instant, and before that, He was not yet conceived in Mary. So in that instant, something physical happened, something changed, even though it was miraculously caused, the effect was physical. So I find that amenable to scientific inquiry. Are we going to be able to recreate it or have a photograph of it happening? no. But can we analyze it? absolutely.

Similarly with the resurrections, there was an instant, before which the man was dead, and after which he lived; although with the Lord's own Resurrection, He had a new body now, glorified, spiritual, we don't know what that means. So people could see Him, and touch Him, after He rose, so we can investigate that fact with science, we can at least come up with some hypotheses about what constituted His new body, as far as atoms and molecules and such, dark matter maybe, who knows? DNA? Does our future body have DNA anymore?

This ties into the Flood because the Flood too can be investigated scientifically, as well as philosophically and theoretically.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You're mixing apples and walruses. This topic is the flood.
The discussion veered into science lining up with scripture, so no it's not mixing apples and walruses.
There are several supernatural events in scripture that do not line up with science.
If you want to believe the flood was not a supernatural event it's OK by me, but don't begrudge me for believing it was supernatural.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
The discussion veered into science lining up with scripture, so no it's not mixing apples and walruses.
There are several supernatural events in scripture that do not line up with science.
If you want to believe the flood was not a supernatural event it's OK by me, but don't begrudge me for believing it was supernatural.
So what do you think? Do you believe that all the waters of the Flood preexisted the Flood, or that it was created ex nihilo at the time of the Flood? No offense or antagonism implied or intended here, just very curious!
 

Right Divider

Body part
The discussion veered into science lining up with scripture, so no it's not mixing apples and walruses.
Specifically about the flood.
There are several supernatural events in scripture that do not line up with science.
I never said that everything in scripture can be confirmed by scientific observation.
If you want to believe the flood was not a supernatural event it's OK by me, but don't begrudge me for believing it was supernatural.
I never did any such thing.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So what do you think? Do you believe that all the waters of the Flood preexisted the Flood, or that it was created ex nihilo at the time of the Flood? No offense or antagonism implied or intended here, just very curious!
Wish I was there to witness how it happened.
I have no idea if all the water that caused the flood preexisted.
I lean towards the waters coming from below (fountains of the deep bursting open) and above (the windows of heaven and/or the storehouses mentioned in scripture) which would mean the waters already existed.
But I don't rule out that God could have created more water for the event.
I leave that option open as a possibility.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
Wish I was there to witness how it happened.
I have no idea if all the water that caused the flood preexisted.
I lean towards the waters coming from below (fountains of the deep bursting open) and above (the windows of heaven and/or the storehouses mentioned in scripture) which would mean the waters already existed.
But I don't rule out that God could have created more water for the event.
I leave that option open as a possibility.
Very good. Banana.

One other thing kicking around in my mind is how all the fish died too. That means the waters were poisonous or toxic anyway, at least for a while until things settled down. Or maybe they were just very hot! That's one thing we don't have in the Bible, is the temperature of the waters of the Flood. Maybe it was all very hot! It took 150 days for all the ruckus with the crust to settle down, and for all the waters to cool off!

Think.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
As a miracle apart from natural law, yes.

Miracles are supernatural events, yes.

As per natural law it is not.

Supra.

In other words, science does not match scripture in that case,

Except that it does. It says it's not possible, naturally. That's why a SUPERnatural Creator is required.

See, science DOES agree with the Bible.

so I don't try to make science and scripture match up.

You should do it more often.

Then make science line up with a supernatural virgin birth.

Supra.

The discussion veered into science lining up with scripture, so no it's not mixing apples and walruses.

There's a difference between science lining up with scripture (what we're attempting to do) and saying that an event recorded in scripture didn't happen according to natural laws, where no miracles (supernatural events) are recorded (which is what you're doing).

There are several supernatural events in scripture that do not line up with science.

So what? That doesn't mean that ALL extraordinary events are therefore supernatural.

If you want to believe the flood was not a supernatural event it's OK by me, but don't begrudge me for believing it was supernatural.

I will when you assert that it was a supernatural event when it's not described as such by scripture. That would be changing what scripture says.

Wish I was there to witness how it happened.

Try the next best thing, Bryan Nickel's videos.

I have no idea if all the water that caused the flood preexisted.

The Bible says it does.

I lean towards the waters coming from below (fountains of the deep bursting open) and above (the windows of heaven and/or the storehouses mentioned in scripture) which would mean the waters already existed.

The Bible says that the waters came up from below the ground, and then fell back from the sky.

Think about what happens when you put a portable vertical sprinkler in a pool, then turn the water on. At first, you have the water shooting up into the air, then it falls back down to the ground, and slowly fills up the pool. Eventually, the water levels get high enough where the spray from the sprinkler starts to decrease, because it has to push pater through the already existing water. Then, eventually, there's no more downpour, because the force of the sprinkler can't push the water through the already present water levels, yet the water keeps rising.

That's an analogy of what happened during the flood, but it was on a much larger scale.

But I don't rule out that God could have created more water for the event.

The Bible doesn't say He did, so why speculate?

I leave that option open as a possibility.

It's not a possibility, from the perspective of the Bible.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Very good. Banana.

One other thing kicking around in my mind is how all the fish died too. That means the waters were poisonous or toxic anyway, at least for a while until things settled down. Or maybe they were just very hot! That's one thing we don't have in the Bible, is the temperature of the waters of the Flood. Maybe it was all very hot! It took 150 days for all the ruckus with the crust to settle down, and for all the waters to cool off!

Think.
There might have been some areas where the water was too hot or toxic for fish to survive.
But it couldn't have been all areas since there was fish that survived.

The vegetation would be another thing to ponder.
Completely under water for a long time.
I don't know how long all the vegetation would be able to survive under such pressure.
What did all those critters on the ark have to eat when they left the ark?
But some vegetation had to be pretty resilient since the dove came back with an olive leaf before the waters had completely subsided.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
There might have been some areas where the water was too hot or toxic for fish to survive.
But it couldn't have been all areas since there was fish that survived.

The vegetation would be another thing to ponder.
Completely under water for a long time.
I don't know how long all the vegetation would be able to survive under such pressure.
What did all those critters on the ark have to eat when they left the ark?
But some vegetation had to be pretty resilient since the dove came back with an olive leaf before the waters had completely subsided.
I believe the Scripture says all the fish died. As far as plants go, since they reproduce with seeds and spores or whatever, I don't see that as a tough nut to crack. Seeds are survivors!
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
One other thing kicking around in my mind is how all the fish died too.

Who said they died?

That means the waters were poisonous or toxic anyway, at least for a while until things settled down. Or maybe they were just very hot! That's one thing we don't have in the Bible, is the temperature of the waters of the Flood. Maybe it was all very hot! It took 150 days for all the ruckus with the crust to settle down, and for all the waters to cool off!

The fountains themselves were ice cold, subzero, the only thing keeping them from freezing was the level of mineral content, which would have drastically lowered its freezing point.

Consider listening to this RSR series:

 

Right Divider

Body part
I believe the Scripture says all the fish died.
I don't think that scripture says that.

Gen 7:20-24 (AKJV/PCE)
(7:20) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (7:21) And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: (7:22) All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died. (7:23) And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. (7:24) And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
As far as plants go, since they reproduce with seeds and spores or whatever, I don't see that as a tough nut to crack. Seeds are survivors!
Agree.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I believe the Scripture says all the fish died.
I don't recall that.
If all fish died in the flood then God had to create more.


As far as plants go, since they reproduce with seeds and spores or whatever, I don't see that as a tough nut to crack. Seeds are survivors!
Seeds could.
But we have a dove coming back with an olive leaf.
So at least one olive tree survived the flood.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
I don't recall that.
Looks like I stand corrected!
If all fish died in the flood then God had to create more.
Not necessarily, although if they didn't all die then it's moot anyways. :)
Seeds could.
But we have a dove coming back with an olive leaf.
So at least one olive tree survived the flood.
Well idk. Plants can grow pretty quick when conditions permit. Perhaps an olive pit was atop one of the higher hills and found purchase and grew there for weeks or maybe months before the dove came along?
 
Top