• 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

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
... these literal beliefs ... These beliefs ...
You mean, widespread flooding and vast extinction.

Very early in written history, God told us pointblank it happened.

Now we have modern science on the one hand dismissing God's testimony of widespread flooding and vast extinction, and on the other hand based on physical evidence, promoting widespread flooding and vast extinction.

It isn't like God's account includes unicorns on Mt. Olympus. He said there was widespread flooding and vast extinction. Modern science says there was widespread flooding and vast extinction. Why are you dismissing what God said as allegory. How come modern science isn't allegory too then.
 

blueboy

Member
You mean, widespread flooding and vast extinction.

Very early in written history, God told us pointblank it happened.

Now we have modern science on the one hand dismissing God's testimony of widespread flooding and vast extinction, and on the other hand based on physical evidence, promoting widespread flooding and vast extinction.

It isn't like God's account includes unicorns on Mt. Olympus. He said there was widespread flooding and vast extinction. Modern science says there was widespread flooding and vast extinction. Why are you dismissing what God said as allegory. How come modern science isn't allegory too then.
Very early in written history, God told us pointblank it happened. He did not!

He divinely inspired a story to be written that helped a simple, uneducated generation to understand very basic concepts of cause and effect. God caused and everything else is effect. It also offers a basic insight into punishment and reward.

God does not tell us point blank, because all Scripture is relative truth and not absolute truth, because there will always be more to know and learn about God.

There is not so much as a thimble full of evidence for the literal Flood of Noah, or any kind of extinction event in that age. Bio-systems flourished, populations and civilisations expanded and lived abundantly.

Whomever is saying there was widespread flooding and extinctions in this age is promoting pseudo-science, not real science. And rather than dismissing God's word, I am doing my best to extract it from the thousands of years of superstition and the human ego that will not allow truth to come to light. That truth must include science because there is only one truth and science is from God so that we might better understand the staggering complexity of His wondrous Creation.
 

blueboy

Member
I'm glad you're willing to read about it. Yes, I'm sure there will be dissenting views, but the fact is that sedimentary rock HAS formed less than 3500 (or 5300 or 4350 or whatever) years ago. And if it can form that quickly (in a few decades), it could have formed that quickly the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. Mt St Helens supports the shorter ages of the strata, and provides a glimpse into the mechanisms active with Noah's flood that lead to it being a workable hypothesis for the more voluminous strata we see all over the world today. Assigning millions of years to strata because "science" says it takes millions of years to form is a religious belief instead of real science--you're trusting the scientists, who may have their own agenda, instead of the evidence itself.

This rock would have a very specific signature if sedimentary rock has really been formed in such a short period. I'm still researching this and am yet to be convinced that this is rock as opposed to densely packed detritus from the eruption.

I just don't understand why science has you so rattled. Sure there are countless bigoted, know-alls running science and in many ways they don't even realise that what they are doing is more a religious undertaking than information gathering.

Science is from God and all science can do is reveal the attributes of Creation in all their glory. Religion then reveals the purpose and the essence of Creation, so if science tells us something, you and I know we are learning one more little secret about Creation, whereas the scientists think they are removing God and Creation. The end result of all scientific research will end up at God. So don't worry about this war with science, you and I know better, so let's just use their work to better inform ourselves.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
This rock would have a very specific signature if sedimentary rock has really been formed in such a short period. I'm still researching this and am yet to be convinced that this is rock as opposed to densely packed detritus from the eruption.

I just don't understand why science has you so rattled. Sure there are countless bigoted, know-alls running science and in many ways they don't even realise that what they are doing is more a religious undertaking than information gathering.

Science is from God and all science can do is reveal the attributes of Creation in all their glory. Religion then reveals the purpose and the essence of Creation, so if science tells us something, you and I know we are learning one more little secret about Creation, whereas the scientists think they are removing God and Creation. The end result of all scientific research will end up at God. So don't worry about this war with science, you and I know better, so let's just use their work to better inform ourselves.
You're really unaware of both youself and your audience if you think those who oppose evolution aew "rattled" by the theory of evolution.
 

blueboy

Member
You're really unaware of both youself and your audience if you think those who oppose evolution aew "rattled" by the theory of evolution.
Not sure why suggesting, science, not evolution, has me unaware of myself? Sure evolution is one of the schools of though within the pantheon of science, but science is not really a challenge to scripture, only certain scriptural beliefs which contradict science. Creationists are somewhat rattled by science. Maybe, highly reactive, is a better term. They do feel as though they are in conflict with science, just look at they way they use derogatory terms regarding science, which is the backbone of all our lives. They imagine science to be the antipathies of scripture but they are really polar ends for the same human search for truth. Remove either one and you end up with superstition or materialism.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Very early in written history, God told us pointblank it happened. He did not!

Yes, He did.

He divinely inspired a story to be written

Yes, but it wasn't fiction that He inspired. It was a record of the literal history of the universe, because aside from Adam, who was only present on the last day of the universe's (including everything within it) creation, and the angels (who were there from around day 2, but whom we do not have access to), there were no other observers to give a record of what actually happened save for God Himself.

So if God says He created in 6 days, and rested on the seventh, why do you call Him a liar, and say that He didn't create in 6 days, but rather millions of years?

that helped a simple, uneducated generation

I think you seriously underestimate how smart ancient man was.

So much so that you don't realize that, compared to current-day man, they were geniuses. They make Einstein and Newton seem like toddlers in comparison.

I recommend reading Don Landis' book, The Genius of Ancient Man.


Or if you're unable, consider listening to the show where Bob Enyart interviewed him:


to understand very basic concepts of cause and effect.

I'm sure they understood it just fine.

God caused and everything else is effect.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that God didn't tell Moses what actually happened.

It also offers a basic insight into punishment and reward.

Sure, but again, supra.

God does not tell us point blank,

Yes, He does. It's just that people like you don't like it, because it doesn't fit your worldview.

because all Scripture is relative truth and not absolute truth,

False.

because there will always be more to know and learn about God.

Non-sequitur. Just because we will never full understand or comprehend God doesn't mean He doesn't tell us absolute truth in His Word.

There is not so much as a thimble full of evidence for the literal Flood of Noah,

There's an entire solar system of evidence for the very literal, global, Flood of Noah. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

or any kind of extinction event in that age.

In what age?

Bio-systems flourished, populations and civilisations expanded and lived abundantly.

When?

Whomever is saying there was widespread flooding and extinctions in this age

Define "this age." Please.

is promoting pseudo-science, not real science.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And rather than dismissing God's word, I am doing my best to extract it from the thousands of years of superstition and the human ego that will not allow truth to come to light.

There is none, except in your head.

There's nothing superstitious about saying that God created in 6 days and rested on the seventh, and that He later destroyed all life save one family of 8 and a boat's worth of animals, with a global flood. There's nothing superstitious about saying that Christ came to die for all men, and on the third day rose again, and is now in heaven waiting to return. There is nothing at all superstitious about saying that upon His return, He will reign for a thousand years on earth, and then those of us who have a relationship with Him shall live with Him for the rest of eternity.

All of those things are facts, not superstition. They did, or will, in the case of the latter, in fact happen.

That truth must include science because there is only one truth and science is from God so that we might better understand the staggering complexity of His wondrous Creation.

Science (real science) affirms a literal interpretation of scripture.

This rock would have a very specific signature if sedimentary rock has really been formed in such a short period. I'm still researching this and am yet to be convinced that this is rock as opposed to densely packed detritus from the eruption.

The 1980 Mt St Helens Flow was dated millions of years old, using radiometric dating.

Also, see this video:

I just don't understand why science has you so rattled.

Science doesn't have ANY of us rattled. We LOVE science. What we don't like is when people claim science as their proof of a worldview that doesn't match reality.

Sure there are countless bigoted, know-alls running science and in many ways they don't even realise that what they are doing is more a religious undertaking than information gathering.

No one here was attacking their character.

Science is from God and all science can do is reveal the attributes of Creation in all their glory. Religion then reveals the purpose and the essence of Creation, so if science tells us something, you and I know we are learning one more little secret about Creation, whereas the scientists think they are removing God and Creation. The end result of all scientific research will end up at God. So don't worry about this war with science, you and I know better, so let's just use their work to better inform ourselves.

You seem to think that we think that science and Christianity (I'm going to avoid using "religion" here simply because religion could mean anything that has its foundation in superstition, and also because this is a Christian board) are at odds with each other. You are mistaken.

Not sure why suggesting, science, not evolution, has me unaware of myself? Sure evolution is one of the schools of though within the pantheon of science, but science is not really a challenge to scripture, only certain scriptural beliefs which contradict science.

Such as?

The Flood does not contradict science, as there was nothing miraculous about it, save for the creation of the chambers where the water was stored prior to the flood.
A six-day creation story does not contradict science because supernatural actions fall outside the bounds of what science can explain, therefore they neither contradict nor can be affirmed by science.

So please, give us two examples that do not fall within those two topics, that you think contradict science.

Creationists are somewhat rattled by science.

False.

Maybe, highly reactive, is a better term.

Only to that which contradicts reality.

They do feel as though they are in conflict with science,

No, we don't.

just look at they way they use derogatory terms regarding science,

Who is "they"? Quit making blanket statements that can't be supported nor verified.

which is the backbone of all our lives.

We live by faith.
Faith is evidence.
The evidence supports the existence of God.
The evidence supports that Christ rose from the dead, which means all other religions are false.

They imagine science to be the antipathies of scripture

No, we don't. You sure do make a lot of straw man arguments.

but they are really polar ends for the same human search for truth. Remove either one and you end up with superstition or materialism.

True. So stop accusing us of doing so, please.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
God does not tell us point blank, because all Scripture is relative truth and not absolute truth, because there will always be more to know and learn about God.
That does NOT make the truth in the Bible relative. The Bible is absolutely true.
There is not so much as a thimble full of evidence for the literal Flood of Noah, or any kind of extinction event in that age.
More claims without support. Repeating your idiotic opinion does nothing to support your claim.
Bio-systems flourished, populations and civilisations expanded and lived abundantly.
Before and after the flood (in some ways, more so before).
Whomever is saying there was widespread flooding and extinctions in this age is promoting pseudo-science, not real science.
Wrong. Do you enjoy being wrong?
And rather than dismissing God's word, I am doing my best to extract it from the thousands of years of superstition and the human ego that will not allow truth to come to light.
The superstition and human ego problem is on your side.
That truth must include science because there is only one truth and science is from God so that we might better understand the staggering complexity of His wondrous Creation.
Real science agrees with the Bible. Your type of "science" is phony.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I don't feel a need to suggest you are irascible, you make that clear and obvious in the way you post back to me. And I do understand that this is your comeback, but you need to work on it a bit more.

I just don't want to be the cause of any unpleasentness for you. If my posting causes you discomfort, which it seems to be doing. I will just move on. I have no intention of bothering you.

Aha! I knew you aren't a man of your word. You're still posting here, even after telling us you were going to just move on. Good look.

It makes one wonder whether, when you told me your posting "seems to be" causing me "discomfort," perhaps you were just projecting. Hmmm?
 

Derf

Well-known member
This rock would have a very specific signature if sedimentary rock has really been formed in such a short period. I'm still researching this and am yet to be convinced that this is rock as opposed to densely packed detritus from the eruption.

I just don't understand why science has you so rattled. Sure there are countless bigoted, know-alls running science and in many ways they don't even realise that what they are doing is more a religious undertaking than information gathering.

Science is from God and all science can do is reveal the attributes of Creation in all their glory. Religion then reveals the purpose and the essence of Creation, so if science tells us something, you and I know we are learning one more little secret about Creation, whereas the scientists think they are removing God and Creation. The end result of all scientific research will end up at God. So don't worry about this war with science, you and I know better, so let's just use their work to better inform ourselves.
War with science? Rattled by science? I have no animosity toward science. As long as "science" is the study of creation and not just proposed hypotheses.

But let's replace the word "science" with "the Bible" and ask you the same questions.

I don't see much difference between your wanting to view the Bible through the lens of ever-changing science vs my wanting to view science through the lens of never-changing scripture, except that mine provides a much more stable foundation.

And if science really is all from God, then we can be assured that His word would not be more poorly inspired than uninspired science, right?

Yet God's inspired word tells us that Satan tries to trick us by pretending to be an angel of light, and that there is something that is falsely called "science".

2 Corinthians 11:14 (KJV)
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV)
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

As you can see, we, like Timothy, are not to spend a lot of time trying to oppose this falsely so called science, but we are to encourage believers with the truth.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Not sure why suggesting, science, not evolution, has me unaware of myself? Sure evolution is one of the schools of though within the pantheon of science, but science is not really a challenge to scripture, only certain scriptural beliefs which contradict science. Creationists are somewhat rattled by science. Maybe, highly reactive, is a better term. They do feel as though they are in conflict with science, just look at they way they use derogatory terms regarding science, which is the backbone of all our lives. They imagine science to be the antipathies of scripture but they are really polar ends for the same human search for truth. Remove either one and you end up with superstition or materialism.
You have reading comprehension problems as you answered a post written by someone other than me. Try again and see if you can actually understand what I wrote.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Not sure why suggesting, science, not evolution, has me unaware of myself? Sure evolution is one of the schools of though within the pantheon of science, but science is not really a challenge to scripture, only certain scriptural beliefs which contradict science. Creationists are somewhat rattled by science. Maybe, highly reactive, is a better term. They do feel as though they are in conflict with science, just look at they way they use derogatory terms regarding science, which is the backbone of all our lives. They imagine science to be the antipathies of scripture but they are really polar ends for the same human search for truth. Remove either one and you end up with superstition or materialism.

What creationists are actually against is the corpus of falsehood, nonsense, and irrational thinking that you and your fellow, committed-to-error Bible-despisers reverently choose to misname "science". You're a parrot when it comes to that word, and your constant mindless chanting of "science" is a cognitive equivalent to squawking, "Polly wanna cracker!"

"just look at they way they use derogatory terms regarding science"

Just look at the way we use apt terms regarding the rank, self-defeating stupidity you persistently, erroneously choose to call "science".

You're pathetically naïve to imagine that your wholly emotive, cognitively meaningless use of words like
"science" and "scientist" as empty props to try to favorably impress, or awe into silence critics of the stupidity you promote will succeed.

No rationally-thinking person takes this guy seriously:


rhondafrost.png

You're that guy, blueboy.
 

blueboy

Member
You have reading comprehension problems as you answered a post written by someone other than me. Try again and see if you can actually understand what I wrote.
It is true that I have problems, so to help me solve one could you please tell me who wrote this? I may have a comprehension problem, but the poor soul who wrote the following is no better and can't spell.

"You're really unaware of both youself and your audience if you think those who oppose evolution aew "rattled" by the theory of evolution."
 

blueboy

Member
What creationists are actually against is the corpus of falsehood, nonsense, and irrational thinking that you and your fellow, committed-to-error Bible-despisers reverently choose to misname "science". You're a parrot when it comes to that word, and your constant mindless chanting of "science" is a cognitive equivalent to squawking, "Polly wanna cracker!"

"just look at they way they use derogatory terms regarding science"

Just look at the way we use apt terms regarding the rank, self-defeating stupidity you persistently, erroneously choose to call "science".

You're pathetically naïve to imagine that your wholly emotive, cognitively meaningless use of words like
"science" and "scientist" as empty props to try to favorably impress, or awe into silence critics of the stupidity you promote will succeed.

No rationally-thinking person takes this guy seriously:


rhondafrost.png

You're that guy, blueboy.
I sincerely hope you got it all out and feel much better after that, nobody should have to carry all that around with them and if I've helped in any way is has all been worth it. And that's not really my kind of blue, I go for reflex to midnight blue and I'm not much of a beer drinker, but I do like the occasional whiskey, Old Fashion.

I'm also going to give you my, Adverb Award for the week for the excessive use of them and you were runner up in the, Verbosity Award. Your feelings nonetheless have been duly noted, but I take no offence because I think you were just showing off a bit in front of your friends. He who seems the most affronted is closest to God, you know, that sort of thing.

That said, regarding science, without which a Creationist would be sitting naked in a cave without a sharp stick, because the sharp stick is also science. We can of course accept and reject any science we choose, that makes no sense of course, but neither do humans most of the time.

Thank you for your post.

Your friend

blueboy
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
That said, regarding science, without which a Creationist would be sitting naked in a cave without a sharp stick, because the sharp stick is also science.

See, here's yet another example of you loudly and proudly advertising that you want to not be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people. Why would you call a stick, "science"? That's just an idiotic thing to do.

We can of course accept and reject any science we choose,

Why do you choose to call what you choose to call "science," "science"?


I sincerely hope you got it all out and feel much better after that, nobody should have to carry all that around with them and if I've helped in any way is has all been worth it.

Here, you're shamelessly projecting, yet again. By your continuing to post on TOL, you have already proved that you don't really believe these things you say to me (see post #172). That being the case, why would you keep casting such witless, banal aspersions at me as you've been doing, if not to try to console yourself and vent your chagrin at your manifest failure to have rationally responded to anything I've said? How's that working out for you? ;)
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Just in case anybody thinks that there's creationists and the Bible on one side, and that's the side talking about the Flood and mass extinction, and then there's science on the other, and they're not talking about the Flood and mass extinction, read this article.


Read it at face value, with its own presumptions (begging the question fallacies; e.g. billions of years, evolution, that the Flood is fictional), but also read it from the standpoint of the Flood as recorded in the Bible. Some excerpts with comments:

" ... continents formed and were torn apart, mountain ranges appeared and disappeared ... " This all could have just happened during the Flood.

"If you're interested in the history of this planet, the library is rocks ... " We believe the rocks substantiate the Flood.

" ... the most credible explanation for Earth's third and biggest mass extinction ... " Flood deniers believe in multiple mass extinctions spread over billions of years, while we believe ... in the Flood.

" ... the "Great Dying," ... its cause had long been debated. Theories included rising oceans ... " Like, widespread flooding?

" ... or even an asteroid like the one that subsequently doomed the dinosaurs 66 million years ago." In passing the article mentions another mass extinction with a different explanation for why that one happened. Again if you believe in the Flood, then that was the only mass extinction event.

The main difference between believing God about the Flood, and denying the Flood, so far as I can tell, is all about fossils which settled at different depths in the "library" (supra) of (sedimentary) rock. There's no denying that this occurred. What Flood deniers really really need to be true is that the different layers /strata formed over what they call "millions" and even "billions" of years. These are presumed to be fictional entities by those who believe in the Flood, since they've never been demonstrated to be nonfiction, exactly like evolution.

The whole Flood denial is based squarely on the meaning of the measurements used to support the notion that rocks are millions and billions of years old. Without this, Flood denial collapses.
 
Top