• 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

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If the crust was 'floating'

It wasn't floating, in any sense of the word.

Or, as Peter put it:

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. - 2 Peter 3:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:5-6&version=NKJV

See also this post in the other thread:

The "firmament called Heaven" is not the "firmament of the heavens" (the sky, space).

The one in Genesis 1:8 is "samayim" ("Heaven(s)"), which is what God called the crust.
The one in Genesis 1:9 is "hassamayim" ("the heavens"), the sky.
The one in Genesis 1:14 and the rest of the chapter is "hassamayim" ("the heavens"), the sky.

Thus, to paraphrase:

1:8
And God called the [crust] [Heaven] . . .
1:9
And God said, "Let the waters under [the sky] be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear. . ."
1:14
And God said, "Let there appear lights in the firmament of [the sky]. . ."

This is supported by 2 Peter 3:5-6:

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. - 2 Peter 3:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:5-6&version=NKJV

In other words, the earth (the dry land, the crust) had water beneath it that it was standing out of (the "pillars" (Job 9:6; 1 Samuel 2:8; Psalm 75:3) being it's "legs") and it had water that it was "in," the seas which lay on top of it.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Had Adam not sinned, it stands to reason that he and his descendants would have been able to maintain the garden, which probably could have slowed its growth.

Remember, God said don't eat of it, not "don't touch."

I don't know much about tree maintenance, especially for a tree with that big of a water source, but I'm pretty sure that pruning it would have limited its size somewhat.

But since God kicked him out of the garden when he sinned, He probably just let it grow unattended.
I suppose there are some things about pruning that would strengthen the root system, which would make me think bigger roots, not smaller. Not pruning might result in too many branches for the root system, so it might blow over in a storm, if they had storms before the flood.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
IF----and it's a BIG IF----the global Flood really happened, and IF----and it's an even BIGGER IF----the " fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) referred to a hollow sphere of water surrounding the earth's mantle, a layer submerged beneath the earth's rocky crust, then this would be absolute physical proof of the Creation.

Because why, through natural causes, would the earth develop a layer of water underneath the crust, all around the globe, a layer of water that was directly atop the earth's mantle (made of liquid rock, magma, when it erupts from volcanoes it's called lava)?

The Flood wasn't a miracle. Creation was a miracle. The only reason there would be a layer of water surrounding the mantle would be because God put it there, when He made the earth. iow the earth was 'set up' for the possibility of the Flood, when it was made. It could happen just once, if or whenever the crust that sealed in this supercritical water (we're guessing around half the earth's 1.4 billion cubic kms of water was down there, about a km deep layer if it were liquid, between the liquid magma below and the solid rock crust above) was 'punctured' by something, or somehow.

Once that began, however it began, then the process would not stop until basically all of the water contained in "the fountains of the great deep" was now upon the surface of the planet, and it would take not very long, and it would be absolutely devastating to the crust. Let alone to any life, that was not already in a boat.

If this is what occurred, then our thinking here is that the continents were formed in this way. Before the Flood, the crust was some sort of a mixture of different density rock, some rock being slightly more dense, and some being slightly less dense. All of this rock is still here, but before the Flood the surface of the crust was flatter, and instead of vast oceans there were instead fresh water lakes and ponds and rivers everywhere, but the earth's surface was mostly level land and very green, with fresh water everywhere, but no sea.

And then, as the Flood was happening, once the crust was punctured somehow, perhaps a meteor struck the earth's surface somewhere, all of the less dense rock during this tumultuous process (which is an understatement!) gathered together into continents (and continental shelves), and all the other denser crust gathered into the seabed.

And that's pretty much where things now sit. If this theory is right, then the Flood really does explain why the earth is how it is today, geologically, and all the residue left in the wake of the Flood is still right here, right now, clear to see, only aged about 6000 years by our count. Our inquiry in these threads has been exactly how to conceive of the Flood, that explains both the biblical record and the physical evidence.

All I'm saying in this thread is that, IF we succeed, then we will have proven not only the Flood, but Creation, because how through natural causes would there ever be a 1km thick layer of water between the earth's liquid magma mantle, and the solid rock crust, unless it was put there by God?

We will have proven God.

So let's keep going.
This isn't a very insightful bit of reasoning. Literally everything that exists is evidence that God is real. Without Him, no physical entity has any explanation for why it exists.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
This isn't a very insightful bit of reasoning.
I don't think so but, let's see.
Literally everything that exists is evidence that God is real.
Of course.
Without Him, no physical entity has any explanation for why it exists.
Yes again.

Recall that I am at geology level zero for starters. I have exposed myself to a lot of stuff since this OP was written. I'd put myself at a level 0.1 or maybe 0.25 by now (a sophomore geology major would be like a level 1.00). Still not very much, but enough to now know that the fundamental difference between the biblical case for Creation and for the lack of a better term "modern" geology, is basically the Flood.

For instance modern geology's "majority report" holds that strata were formed over many millions of years, whereas HPT says they were formed pretty much within months or even just days.

HPT is the only, idk, "serious" theory of the Flood that I've found but this is due to me listening to TOLers tell me about it. I've begun to examine Mr. Bryan Nickel's treatment of Mr. Walt Brown's HPT, and I even found a video of Mr. Brown himself describing his idea. All fascinating, but especially Mr. Nickel's presentations become quite dense in geological language which leads me to seek critiques of the HPT, of which so far I have found none, and to simply look to see what modern geology says about such things.

And probably the most interesting thing I've come across so far is that modern geology admits that there were multiple gigantic floods, including the creation of the Mediterranean Sea which they claim happened all at once when the Strait of Gibraltar broke open leading to the Mediterranean all at once filling up to the level of the Atlantic Ocean. I also read where they say that Pangea was once flooded.

Along with this is geology's claim that there have been multiple extinction events.

The Flood instead suggests that there was just one gigantic flood, and that there was just one extinction event. The same event, the biblical Flood.

What I was not expecting to find was that evolution is a geological, and not a biological theory. Because it's based on the fossil record, which is contained in rocks, and rocks are the focus of the discipline of geology.

I'm just examining right now. I'm investigating. I'm taking the biblical record and the geological record and logic and trying to find the true theory, or explanation for what really happened, and, importantly, how to attack modern geology's majority report, and how to defend the true theory against attacks from modern geology.

Mr. Brown in his video mentioned I believe 25 (but it might have been 27) I believe "anomalies" with the earth that as far as he was concerned, are all unexplained or at least insufficiently explained by modern geology. I would like to know which things he's talking about.

I also am having to think about the dinosaurs. I wasn't expecting that either. I'm examining the idea that all the dinosaurs were sea creatures, though certainly they were air breathing and not fish, so like reptilian whales or dolphins. That idea just meandered into my mind when I remembered learning that geologists had concluded that such beasts as brachiosaurs probably lived their whole lives basically underwater, just living at depths where their enormous necks could extend all the way to the surface so they could breathe, and their bodies were submerged. If this is true, then why not all the other fellows also living in the water? A T. rex would just be like a shark with legs and a big tail, swimming around hunting brachiosaurs or whatever.

At any rate, this would explain why apparently no dinosaurs survived the Flood, since God in Genesis only mentioned land creatures and birds in what would perish, He never mentioned fish or any other sea creatures. So some of them extincted, and some didn't. And all the dinosaurs did.

The age of the rocks that geologists are "measuring" (they're for sure measuring something, I'm just not sure that it's age), along with the patterns of fossils found across continents and from one continent to the next, lead modern geologists to claim that there were many millions of years involved in the sedimentary formation of the strata, but it could just as easily have been a very brief event where certain organisms were the first to die, followed by other types later, etc. And if the strata were laid down quickly, capturing all sorts of corpses, in some sort of logical order, and then formed hard rock through pressure under the weight of all the sediment that ultimately did not form hard rock, this would explain those mysterious fossils that directly conflict with modern geology; the polystrates.

We still need to explain why their measurements are saying what they're saying they're saying.

And what I'm saying in the OP, though perhaps feebly or poorly, though I still contend not unreasonably, is that armed with a theory of the Flood that can 'convince a jury' (like the case for the Resurrection of Christ can), we should be able to argue the case for all of Creation just from that, and a case that does not require faith to see that it is true, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. (iow a theory that can convince a jury.)

So, if I failed, which apparently I have in the OP, this is my answer to your charge.

:)
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So, if I failed, which apparently I have in the OP, this is my answer to your charge.
Not a failure at all. I was speaking very broadly about the assertion I quoted. You seem to be more focused on the subject in particular.

From a broad, philosophical point of view, I do not try to use anything as evidence for God's existence — or, how did you put it? Of creation.

Geology is the result of physical processes and by understanding those processes, we can eliminate ideas as possible explanations of what happened as well as assert factors that must have been in play.

Both of the competing ideas — evolution and HPT — rely on inundation by water. The other necessary inputs are sediment and cement. What you'll find is that evolutionists typically ignore the rock formation processes, especially cement.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
Not a failure at all. I was speaking very broadly about the assertion I quoted. You seem to be more focused on the subject in particular.
I'm not sure what subject in particular you mean. The OP? The Flood? I'm just asking for clarification.
From a broad, philosophical point of view, I do not try to use anything as evidence for God's existence — or, how did you put it? Of creation.
OK. I mean, I don't either, for my own personal faith's sake. I understand it's faith, it's a free choice, a binary (yes-no) free choice. But there's no harm making a case that would convince a jury, like how the case for Christ's Resurrection can convince a jury.
Geology is the result of physical processes and by understanding those processes, we can eliminate ideas as possible explanations of what happened as well as assert factors that must have been in play.
OK.
Both of the competing ideas — evolution and HPT — rely on inundation by water. The other necessary inputs are sediment and cement. What you'll find is that evolutionists typically ignore the rock formation processes, especially cement.
I remember Mr. Nickel explaining that the cement was provided by subterranean waters from the deep fountains (the abyss in other translations).
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure what subject in particular you mean. The OP? The Flood? I'm just asking for clarification.
The OP.

I think we're just talking past each other a bit. No fault, just the limits of text. :)

OK. I mean, I don't either, for my own personal faith's sake. I understand it's faith, it's a free choice, a binary (yes-no) free choice. But there's no harm making a case that would convince a jury, like how the case for Christ's Resurrection can convince a jury.

Mmm. Yes.

I remember Mr. Nickel explaining that the cement was provided by subterranean waters from the deep fountains (the abyss in other translations).

Yep. The cement problem is vast. Literally every sedimentary rock had to be formed in water containing large concentrations of usually calcium carbonate. Those conditions are rare today, usually only happening when there is very little water, such as when it is dripping through a cave roof.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
The OP.

I think we're just talking past each other a bit. No fault, just the limits of text. :)



Mmm. Yes.



Yep. The cement problem is vast. Literally every sedimentary rock had to be formed in water containing large concentrations of usually calcium carbonate. Those conditions are rare today, usually only happening when there is very little water, such as when it is dripping through a cave roof.
This reminds me of the time I took my step kids down to the Oregon Caves on a vacation. A few years before we went through the caves the park service had created a square concrete tunnel to make exiting the caves easier and the concrete on the roof of the tunnel had cracked. There was water dripping from it as well as a stalactite several inches long hanging from the ceiling.

Well, the guide had been telling us how many millions years it took to grow a stalactite of that length so I asked him the age of the tunnel. He told and my answer to him was that I figured that by the size of that stalactite the tunnel had to be a few million years old from what he had been telling us.

If there hadn't been a bunch of people there I think he would have killed me. He didn't appreciate my observation for some reason. Probably because earlier in the tour I had asked him about his assumption that the water creating the formations in the caves had no variation in flow over millions of years. I asked him how he figured that when droughts and rainy years are so common. He couldn't answer that except to insist that water flows were always the same.

I think he thought I was the tourist from hell.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yep.

"Time" is always cited as a useful part of the discussion by evolutionists. It is almost never relevant. Processes operate according to the supply of their necessary ingredients, not because of how much time passes.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Yep.

"Time" is always cited as a useful part of the discussion by evolutionists. It is almost never relevant. Processes operate according to the supply of their necessary ingredients, not because of how much time passes.
Another term the evolutionists rely on is stasis. My questioning of that concept is what so irritated that tour guide.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What would sort this out is a rational discussion over the evidence. Unfortunately, such engagements typically start and end with the evolutionist asserting a logical fallacy.
Mind you, that's not surprising. When people deny their Creator, the only way they can maintain their rebellion is to avoid the truth at all costs.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
This reminds me of the time I took my step kids down to the Oregon Caves on a vacation. A few years before we went through the caves the park service had created a square concrete tunnel to make exiting the caves easier and the concrete on the roof of the tunnel had cracked. There was water dripping from it as well as a stalactite several inches long hanging from the ceiling.

Well, the guide had been telling us how many millions years it took to grow a stalactite of that length so I asked him the age of the tunnel. He told and my answer to him was that I figured that by the size of that stalactite the tunnel had to be a few million years old from what he had been telling us.

If there hadn't been a bunch of people there I think he would have killed me. He didn't appreciate my observation for some reason. Probably because earlier in the tour I had asked him about his assumption that the water creating the formations in the caves had no variation in flow over millions of years. I asked him how he figured that when droughts and rainy years are so common. He couldn't answer that except to insist that water flows were always the same.

I think he thought I was the tourist from hell.
Being better at rhetoric than everybody else doesn't make you right. They're distinct. President Trump, President Bush 43, President Reagan and President Kennedy were all superlative rhetoricians, but it doesn't make them always right, they're just gifted, talented and skillful rhetoricians.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Being better at rhetoric than everybody else doesn't make you right. They're distinct. President Trump, President Bush 43, President Reagan and President Kennedy were all superlative rhetoricians, but it doesn't make them always right, they're just gifted, talented and skillful rhetoricians.
Was that a rhetorical response? :)
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
What would sort this out is a rational discussion over the evidence. Unfortunately, such engagements typically start and end with the evolutionist asserting a logical fallacy.
You need rhetoric, because you're trying to persuade, but first we need to persuade ourselves. What is your feedback to the idea that the dinosaurs were like today's crocodiles and alligators, and spent most of their time in and around the water? And that they were not included in Noah's inventory because they weren't of the three types of creatures God enumerated before the Flood began? And the fossil record's pattern of dinosaurs and sea creatures being the deepest fossils is related to them all being in and around the water to begin with, when the Flood waters began gushing? With a theory of the dinosaurs we could go a long way to rhetorically damaging the majority report of modern geology.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You need rhetoric, because you're trying to persuade, but first we need to persuade ourselves.

I'm no good at rhetoric. :D

What is your feedback to the idea that the dinosaurs were like today's crocodiles and alligators, and spent most of their time in and around the water?

Depends on the dino. For the specific ones you mentioned, I like the idea.

Although Jurassic Park is going to need a massive rewrite.
And that they were not included in Noah's inventory because they weren't of the three types of creatures God enumerated before the Flood began?
I'm neither here nor there on that one. It's not an irreplaceable explanation for the absence of dinos today and fitting them on the ark isn't a serious issue.

And the fossil record's pattern of dinosaurs and sea creatures being the deepest fossils is related to them all being in and around the water to begin with, when the Flood waters began gushing? With a theory of the dinosaurs we could go a long way to rhetorically damaging the majority report of modern geology.

The rock record has been so badly misrepresented that explanations of this nature get hopelessly lost in the evolutionist's defense of his paradigm.

Moreover, I'm not even sure that YECs have got a firm grasp on how the geological record was formed.

It is certain that the trend you speak of has exceptions, and while the trend probably demands an explanation in spite of the exceptions, examiners need to first agree on the rules of engagement for interpreting a rock sequence.

The first step is to pick a single site and gather all the data for it, not rely on a composite of rock layers.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
idk but this might be a rare picture of a rare rock formation, in a mountain. Maybe 'as a mountain'. Maybe the whole mountain is the whole, possibly rare rock formation itself, I don't know I figure I'm between 0.1-0.25 level geology. But it made me think about the "rug" or carpet that gets 'scrunched' up, as a model for how the granitic crust generated mountains and mountain ranges.

Is that what I'm looking at in this image?

https://www.reddit.com/r/geology/comments/uo22lv
 
Top