Was banned for asking...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2011, 05:47 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  S.T. Sorry it took me so long to respond, but here we go.


“I think it a mistake to try to put everything into a narrow happening of events, though, if there were a cataclysmic upheavel, there would surely be similarities that could be traced acoss the world. But would we not expect there to be discrepancies as well? Meaning, the events surrounding the upheavel and the "settling" process, or receding, would not have been identical in all locations?”

Discrepancies would surely abound, except a global flood that was the product of torrential downpours that lasted for 40 days and nights would cause a global flood that would produce similar global trends across the globe.

I am not sure, but I think we just agreed on this...lol.

The question is this: are we examining the similarities and discrepancies together, or just highlighting what best suits our beliefs?

One thing I would point out is that the biblical account speaks not only of rain (i.e. torrential downpours) but of calamitous upheavel from within the earth also, so the two need to be kept in mind. And I doubt that anyone would deny the ability of either to cause destruction.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We do in fact see numerous points in Earth’s history where apparent sea level ( I say apparent sea level because a change in water depth can be the result of an increase in sea level or a decrease in terrestrial elevation; the last part is related to isostasy) has increased and decreased.


And how would his factor in concerning the discussion at hand? Would it not show that sea level is not necessarily constant? I would think that both events would be related to isostasy. Imagine, just for a moment, an incredible volume of water which previously had not been upon the earth (and this is what scripture teaches, that the waters above the firmament and the waters below the firmament were separated) now suddenly upon the earth. It would be a reasonable assumption that this in itself could account for terrestial elevation, particularly if the "foundation" of the earth was in a state of upheavel (water presses down in one place resulting in land pushing up in another).




(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It is not a single event of flooding and recession of water but multiple times when sea level was increased and decreased and then increased again, and so on and so forth.

As I mentioned in the previous post, scripture teaches that the entire world, when created, was at one time under water. While some of my brethren see a calamitous event prior to the flood as an explanation for this, it is something I would neither affirm or deny, since I do not see a basis for it in scripture, and am not inclined to lean in that direction.

Where is the scientific data to deny that the world was, when first formed, not completely submerged, land appearing afterwards?


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For these events a global record does exist.

Yet do these preclude a worldwide flood?

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And at other points in Earth’s history we see localized events where sea level increased or decreased.

How can it be certain that these were localized, except the evidence is on such a small scale as to be confirmed as a localized event?

To illustrate what I mean, imagine a large fire sweeping over the countryside. Within it's path are homes, some of them consumed by the fire itself, some set ablaze by the heat of the fire, though the fire does not actually reach it, say, the edges of the fire. Within the flood and during it's recession would have been topological events that may have been directly tied to the event itself, while there is also the possibility of events that may have occurred months, years, decades even, after. A possible scenario would be the accumulation of debris (silt, for example) which may have "stopped the mouths" of valleys, creating large lakes or even small seas. Yet, like many a dam that man has built, eventually failed, due to a lack of integrity which would have permanently kept this large body of water contained.

This is given just for the sake of picturing scenarios which may replicate something which seems to have a particular source due to the effects it has wrought.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  These localized events are likely do to regional effects, continental collisions creating basins or rifting causing a drop in elevation.

I can believe this. Which is why I can believe that perhaps large mountains may have been formed as a result of the flood.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “The first question I would ask is this: wouldn't this make sense if prior to the flood these former had been for some time deposited, then, the latter?

Also, are the terrestial found in areas where scientists believe oceans and seas to have been?”

I am not sure I understand the first part,

As to the former, I was referring to marine life (fossil findings) as being deposited before the flood (and I hope I am remembering the context of the conversation), which would be a possible explanation as to why there are no terrestial fossils found with them, as they would have been deposited and covered (possibly) before the flood took place, then, when the catastrophic events that took place happened, again covered by the events themselves.




(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  but the second question is easier. These terrestrial fossils are not in areas (in general) where an ocean would have been.

Would you agree that we would have to say, "As far as we know?" Wouldn't we need to examine in detail that which lies at the bottom of the oceans in order to have a full knowledge of all the facts?

But, I would also ask, would we expect to find terrestial fossils in an area where an ocean would have been?

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In most cases they appear to have lived, died and been buried on land.
In other cases they are near paleo-oceans. The inner-Createcous seaway was a large shallow ocean that covered most of North America. In these waters we get numerous types of marine reptiles and dinosaurs.

In other words, in a place where there was an ocean, we have both marine and terrestial fossils?

What I would ask about this is, does science show that the fossil record preceded, or followed, this ocean? And, where so you stand concerning this?

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The creation of this seaway via tectonic processes would have introduced large amounts of sediments that would have covered up any terrestrial deposits underneath them.

Is it not equally possible that during the creation of this "seaway," that the sediments would have been washed away?

As far as the terrestial deposits, two things come to mind (and keep in mind, this is just uneducated speculation on my part): 1) the formation of of fossils, or, I should say the conditions which would have preserved the subject, could be attributed to as of yet unknown circumstances, such as I suggested concerning the effects of gases under catastrophic conditions; 2) the insistence that conditions remain constant is not a very good argument, meaning, just because there is a catastrophe that an entire area is submitted to, does not mean that there would not be a focal point (such as the center of an earthquake) as well as fringe effects.




(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Another question that comes to mind is how much exploration of fossil records have been done in the beds of existing oceans today? I have heard it said that this is "the last great frontier" today. I would be curious to know if there has been much exploration in the depths of the sea. I imagine the costs would be huge, but, man is an inquisitive creature, so could you tell me what has been done in this area?”

In the deepest portions we are still striving to find living things, drilling into these sediments to get fossils is likely impossible given our current technology.

If man does gain the technology to do so, it would be exciting to see what they find. It would seem to me that if animal life was "teeming," so to speak, we would have far more fossil evidence than we have. Imagine just an average jungle being decimated in a brief time. The variety, if conditions were perfect, would be extreme.

But imagine just one single tsunami (and I present this for consideration due to the fact that in an event of such upheavel it could be expected that topological calamity would surely include foundations under the earth as well as those on dry land) and the effect it has upon a standing land mass. Of course many coastlines are different and would experience different levels of impact as well as what would happen in the aftermath (i.e. that which is upon land being drawn out to sea).

Now imagine that on a worldwide level, which would also include that which fell from the sky, which would contribute, but possibly not be equal to the disruption caused by tectonic movement.

Now, try to put these events into a box in which all events occur in exact manner.

And, sorry, I am picking this back up from my afternoon wanderings...which I blame in part on a short attention span as well as the fact that I am a little under the weather today, so, I am a little foggy (ier than usual...lol).


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But we do have fossils from several drill cores in the oceans. Oil companies employ a lot of paleontologists (mainly micropaleontologists) to determine what rock layers the drill is currently in. From these cores we have quite a few good fossils. We also have a lot of spores and lipids (plant and bacterial lipids) in these as well.

Interesting, isn't it, that there are fossils in the ocean? I can very easily imagine that there is a distinct possibility that much that was affected by the raging waters of the flood may have been washed out to sea.

I ran across some information also concerning gas pockets the oil companies run into while drilling. Really very fascinating. As I was suggesting concerning refrigerants certain conditions existing despite ambient temperatures, even so the oil companies deal with such things. Of course, I should say at this time that not one thing I read would I be willing to say, "This is truth," as there is just too much information that needs to be considered to make blanket statements or worse, jump to conclusions (Fox Mulder would be proud, no?).

One thing would be that fossil evidence under the ocean would seem to me to present a reasonable proof that the earth has undergone some great upheavel somewhere in the past. Study of the fossils there would be fascinating, to say the least.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “This wouldn't seem to be reasonable, to me. When the tsunami struck a few years back, it was not a matter of "the faster" did better than the slower: destruction fell in short order on all.

Now, in the aftermath, the probability that "rearrangement" took place would seem a given. Some larger animals placed differently due to current, weight, obstructions, et cetera.”

But a global rearrangement due to these factors that completely sorted them?


I don't think that I would say that this "separation" precludes a flood.

I can think of many scenarios that would allow for certain fossils (perhaps I should not say "many") to be "sorted."

First, I would have to know the living conditions of the creatures that have been found. Why would I negate the possibility that their demise did not occur before the flood. Or after?

But that was just touching upon the discussion about "survival of the fittest," and that I see that as a non-issue concerning flood events.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In your first question you ask if we would not expect some random variation. Would we not also expect to get some of the same smaller marine invertebrates that are only associated with lower (older) layers in with the upper (younger) layers in this scenario?

No. The fossils found in the lower levels can reasonably be thought to have died, as you say, at a place in time separate from those found in the upper levels.

Equally compelling to me is that we do not have a more thorough mix of certain animal or human fossil evidence, which would suggest that the conditions surrounding the formation of these particular records in some way did not affect other life.

Of the fossil evidence that might actually be tied to the flood event, certain things come to mind for me, such as the living beings, once dead from the calamity, that would have floated, rather than sank. Another would be, if marine life was different, and as I suggested earlier, marine life had the capability of osmoregulators (official term for fish that survive in both salt and fresh water...learned that term today, actually...woohoo!) of today, we would have to take into consideration that much of the dead was not only possibly, but most probably...consumed.

If that were the case, animal and human life that perished in the flood would have passed through the digestive system of whatever ater it, leaving little that would be useful in looking at as a possible future fossil.

Which leads me to this question, which I am sure you can answer: in our current world, do we see circumstances that we can look at and say, "In the future, this will be a fossil?"

I am inclined to think that such circumstances are readily available, and the question answered with a yes. But this is just something that interests me.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And vice versa for some of the upper layer fossils in lower units? I mean there are still plenty of small marine invertebrates in the upper layers that are never found in the older lower units.

Now it is my turn to not understand: so we do find the same "small marine life" in both upper and lower levels?

These small marine invertebrates are found in upper levels which are not found in the lower? I am not sure what point this makes, if you could clarify, please.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “This is what really piqued my curiosity: I have not heard of these before. When were they discovered? It is amazing to picture in one's mind a creature such as this. Imagine walking through a jungle and having one of these come at you, rather than the insects we have today! “


They are really quite fascinating. Imagine a dragonfly that is capable of picking up and carrying of a small dog!

I can certainly imagine a few small dogs i would not have minded this happening to...lol.

Just kidding, I love dogs. Even the ankle-biting squeakers.

This is a fascinating thought (the dragonflies themselves...not annoying yippers being carried off). Would it be unreasonable to think that there are many things in this world that would astound us, which we are not currently aware of? Some of the insects that exist today could inspire horror on our parts.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Can you give me an idea as to the habits of modern dragonflies, and how they behave in heavy rain?”
A good point. Rain would be detrimental to the structural integrity of their wings, but we have other flying organisms that would not have been so unfortunate. There are flying reptiles from the Mesozoic who would have been capable of flying in the rain and finding higher ground.

But we are talking specifically about the dragonfly, not flying reptiles. Which, I would think, would probably stand up better in such conditions. However, I do not wish you to think that I discount the possibility of certain species surviving the flood amongst the flotsam and jestsam. Certain insect species may have inhabited a host corpse and survived thus. But, if a species had a limited number of survivors, this may have contributed to their extinction.

A movie that I found an interesting concept was "Journey to the Center of the Earth," which was entertaining as well as thought provoking. Imagine if there were subterranean pockets of life? I was amazed to learn some years ago about subterranean lakes, even here in North America.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Is it possible that they "ducked for cover," and were thus destroyed? But, I would think that perhaps some may have escaped, though I would think that their natural habitat, and the conditions of that area (for I would speculate that there were varying degrees of calamity from region to region, similar to floods we witness today: narrower passages with greater current than wider passages where the water flow and force is much less) may have been a determining factor. If these dragonflies were found in a particular area, I would think that would have shared a similar fate, for the most part.

Which leads me to ask a question: how widespread are the areas where these are found? Are they found in one place, or many?”

These large dragonflies are found in the Midwest US and in France.

Would that mean that these are the only regions they existed, or is it quite possible that they have been found here due to certain conditions that allowed them to be preserved when their kindred species and contemporaries were not?

Of the fossils found in these two locations, how similar are they? Are they close enough to where they would not be called "cousins," but the same species? Are they "dated" as from the same time frame (and I recognize you can consider tens of thousands of years to be "a short time" in some cases, or, when looking at the big picture)? How do they compare in form to the dragonfly species of today?

I know, a lot of questions, and for me, many of these questions would probably generate dozens more when once pursued. Only by answering certain questions in a particular subject do I feel I can then make an educated statement (which is probably why I seldom do).

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Sugestive, isn't it? At least it is to me. Is it par for the course for a species to perish in such a secluded manner, or is there fossil evidence that suggests vast periods of time between the fossils?

What do the dating measures used show concerning this aspect?”

When I say a single time interval, I am talking about a period of time that may stretch tens of millions of years or a few million years. The dating measures we use to correlate time within units is often confined to particular lithologies and minerals. During the Permian, for instance, we have numerous ash layers (ash from volcanoes) that we can retrieve U-Th-Pb ages from. There are several of these layers in my field area and they provide age constraints on the units above and below them. For instance, if I have an ash layer below my unit of interest and the Zircon yields ages of 295 million years and I have another ash layer above my unit of interest that is 285 million years old, then I know that my sedimentary unit is between 295-285 million years old.

As I have said, I do hold to a young earth belief, seeing that there is an approximate timeframe of about six thousand years so far, and topping that off with the promised Millennial Reign, which would draw to a close man's existance in this current world, bringing the current earth's existance to seven thousand years, which fits a biblical pattern (i.e. seven representing conclusion, such as the seveth day sabbath, also represented by the Millennial reign).

I can only imagine how ignorant that sounds, in view of a belief that considers such things as carbon dating and other evidences (such as the fossil record) as incontrovertible fact. However, that is my belief.

Going back to the question, though, I have no problem believing that the content of certain minerals could be a matter of...that was how they were created, not to mention that I do not think we truly have an understanding of all things to be dogmatic about certain things. Such as, how is it discounted that certain minerals or substances could not have been changed due to say, pressure from the earth itself? Similar to man creating diamonds, excelerating a process that occurs naturally over presumably a long period of time?

Also, if in fact there was great upheavel, is it not equally possible that this disruption could account for not only an incomplete fossil record, but also of diverse findings which might indicate one thing, but in fact be something altogether different?

Okay, BeardedDude, have to get going. In much of the "research" I did today (and I did not, so you know, run to creation sites, but looked at things on a general approach, which includes sites and information of creation deniers) not very much of it actually contributed to my answers here, though I did see some things that actually fall in line with some things I reasoned about in the previous post.

I have enjoyed it. I usually do not get too involved in discussions like these, though I do find them of great interest.

One last question: How 'bout them wooly mammoths? (lol)

I would not mind at all your views on them.

Gotta go, thanks.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2011, 05:54 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(29-09-2011 01:14 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  S.T.

You clearly don't get it, and I'm sorry for you.

GOD IS NOT A REAL ENTITY. Therefore, *anything* you might have to ...
So, S.T. this is it. I'm not going to respond to you anymore on this thread about t



WAIT... I DIDN'T WRITE THIS ENTRY.... There is a mix up....

OK, in an attempt to correct a mistake, I recovered this post for Defacto. Unfortunately, I only recovered part of it, and mistakenly posted it as his words when really he had quoted it.

My mistake. Please disregard. It was MY attempt to recover a post.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2011, 06:05 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(29-09-2011 05:18 PM)cufflink Wrote:  S.T.:

Having read a number of your lengthy and detailed replies to various posters, I find myself with this question:

What kind of evidence could anyone here present to you that would make you question your belief in the Christian concept of God or in the inerrancy of the Bible? What facts about the world, if they were proven to be facts and pointed out to you, or what kind of reasoning, would lead you to consider that you might be wrong? In other words, are your beliefs falsifiable?

For my part, I know exactly what would make me give up my atheism and become a believer. All it would take is for God to make himself known to me, in a totally unambiguous, unmistakeable, and convincing way (since he's omniscient, he would know exactly what that would be for me), and say, "Just wanted to let you know: I DO EXIST." That would do it. I'd become the most ardent believer you've ever seen.

What would do it for you? What kind of evidence would make you change your beliefs?

You know, I do not consider this to be an invalid question. There would be things that might cause me to question God's existence, and to doubt that His word is not true.

These would be internal things, for the most part, such as the work He has done in my life to date. If I were to once again fall into drug or alcohol abuse. I cannot tell you or describe the nature of my addiction, nor the effect they had on my life, nor, in retrospect, the mindset that once I had.

However, as scripture gives testimony to, though God appeared before you and said, "I am here, you may now believe," I do not think that would without doubt, convince you. It did not convince many in scripture who had such evidence. I do not say that to offend, just to point out that "evidence" does not sway man's natural desire to do what he likes.

Even as we debate certain things here, your and my belief cannot always be said to be rooted in concrete evidences. I know I am the only one here that will admit that, but if all were honest, who here who holds to atheism have not taken for granted "scientific proofs" rather than doing the actual research themselves. You have no idea who is telling the truth, who is lying who is withholding "evidence?"

I do not see myself as impervious to temptation, nor do I think that I am above falling into a state where my faith might be lacking...this happens sometimes. However, I do feel that by God's word there are promises made to His children that are inviolable. I do not believe that I am capable of "not believing," as I have read here as the testimony of some.

Let me ask you this: do you believe in miracles? Have you never once heard of something that, well, science just had no answer for? I have, in the short time I have been a Christian, been witness to things that defy explanation, such as a man diagnosed with terminal cancer of such a vicious nature...still alive well after his death sentence was rendered by doctors.

But, lest I give the impression that I seek to prove God's existance to someone, I will stop there (also, dinner is ready, and I am being paged...lol).

I will ask another question. And this will be the last one: you say you have read my lengthy posts ( guess this is just something looked down on by some on all types of forums), have you also read the responses? Have you noticed that there is some extreme emotion (which cannot be denied) on the parts of some? I myself like to think that is generated by the internal conflict which always accompanies the conviction that falls upon hearts when God is speaking to them.

You might laugh, scoff even, but God will appear to you, though it will not be in a manner you might think. Stop looking for glowing clouds and angelic forms, instead...listen to your heart.

Gotta go, but thanks for the comment.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2011, 07:48 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
“The question is this: are we examining the similarities and discrepancies together, or just highlighting what best suits our beliefs?

One thing I would point out is that the biblical account speaks not only of rain (i.e. torrential downpours) but of calamitous upheavel from within the earth also, so the two need to be kept in mind. And I doubt that anyone would deny the ability of either to cause destruction.”

The issue I have here is that the claim of “upheavel (sic) from within the Earth” is an unsubstantiated claim. There are no great masses of water underneath the surface of the Earth to account for this biblical claim

“And how would his factor in concerning the discussion at hand? Would it not show that sea level is not necessarily constant? I would think that both events would be related to isostasy. Imagine, just for a moment, an incredible volume of water which previously had not been upon the earth (and this is what scripture teaches, that the waters above the firmament and the waters below the firmament were separated) now suddenly upon the earth. It would be a reasonable assumption that this in itself could account for terrestial elevation, particularly if the "foundation" of the earth was in a state of upheavel (water presses down in one place resulting in land pushing up in another).”

Water pressing down in one area is not heavy enough to cause a significant decrease in elevation because of its density. And isostasy would not cause a corresponding increase in another area. Isostatic changes in elevation are similar to an ice cube floating in water. The majority of the ice cube resides below the surface but a small portion is elevated above the surface. The bigger the piece of ice (icebergs) the larger the portion that sticks out. This analogy works well because rock is less dense than the mantle that it sits upon, just like the ice is less dense than the water. Sea level is not constant but maximum sea level would be attained today by melting all of the ice on Earth, and even this would only cause a rise of a few meters, enough to worry Florida but not the majority of the World. Relative sea level changes can be the result of sea level changes and isostasy.

“As I mentioned in the previous post, scripture teaches that the entire world, when created, was at one time under water. While some of my brethren see a calamitous event prior to the flood as an explanation for this, it is something I would neither affirm or deny, since I do not see a basis for it in scripture, and am not inclined to lean in that direction.

Where is the scientific data to deny that the world was, when first formed, not completely submerged, land appearing afterwards? “

Continental crust has probably been accumulating through time, but land has likely existed for most of Earth’s history. Once again, we have sedimentary rocks and these require sediments from erosional processes, and this requires exposure. And as for your last question, Where is the scientific data to deny that the world, when it first solidified, was completely submerged? We have rocks from very early in Earth’s history but not from its earliest history. These rocks have likely been long gone and recycled back into the environment.

“Yet do these preclude a worldwide flood?

How can it be certain that these were localized, except the evidence is on such a small scale as to be confirmed as a localized event?

To illustrate what I mean, imagine a large fire sweeping over the countryside. Within it's path are homes, some of them consumed by the fire itself, some set ablaze by the heat of the fire, though the fire does not actually reach it, say, the edges of the fire. Within the flood and during it's recession would have been topological events that may have been directly tied to the event itself, while there is also the possibility of events that may have occurred months, years, decades even, after. A possible scenario would be the accumulation of debris (silt, for example) which may have "stopped the mouths" of valleys, creating large lakes or even small seas. Yet, like many a dam that man has built, eventually failed, due to a lack of integrity which would have permanently kept this large body of water contained.

This is given just for the sake of picturing scenarios which may replicate something which seems to have a particular source due to the effects it has wrought.”

These events do negate the possibility of global flooding events. When examining other stratigraphic records of a similar age in other geographic locations we find evidence for terrestrial environments and/or shallow water. There is no point in the Stratigraphic record containing fossils that indicates complete submersion of all land at the same time.
“I can believe this. Which is why I can believe that perhaps large mountains may have been formed as a result of the flood.”

The physics alone behind the processes alone needed to build mountains negates the argument of them being the result of water. The Himalayas are still increasing in elevation. They are the result of the India Plate (the lithospheric plate with India on it) ramming into the Eurasian plate. Like a gigantic sized car crash where the two cars crumple into one another.

“As to the former, I was referring to marine life (fossil findings) as being deposited before the flood (and I hope I am remembering the context of the conversation), which would be a possible explanation as to why there are no terrestial fossils found with them, as they would have been deposited and covered (possibly) before the flood took place, then, when the catastrophic events that took place happened, again covered by the events themselves.”

This would seemingly weaken the evidence for a global flood, since these lower units that contain no terrestrial fossils are often some of the most extensive marine deposits. This would also mean that there is some layer within the stratigraphic package that would identifiable as the point where the flood began, and as I stated in one of previous responses, there is no evidence of complete global submergence.

“What I would ask about this is, does science show that the fossil record preceded, or followed, this ocean? And, where so you stand concerning this?”

The evidence shows terrestrial environments before the interior Cretaceous seaway, then it shows a thriving marine community that lasted for millions of years before a new terrestrial fauna replaced it.

“Is it not equally possible that during the creation of this "seaway," that the sediments would have been washed away?

As far as the terrestial deposits, two things come to mind (and keep in mind, this is just uneducated speculation on my part): 1) the formation of of fossils, or, I should say the conditions which would have preserved the subject, could be attributed to as of yet unknown circumstances, such as I suggested concerning the effects of gases under catastrophic conditions; 2) the insistence that conditions remain constant is not a very good argument, meaning, just because there is a catastrophe that an entire area is submitted to, does not mean that there would not be a focal point (such as the center of an earthquake) as well as fringe effects. “

These are not high energy environments, so completely washing away any sediments would not occur. Some may (and most likely were) removed, but not all of them. The stratigraphic record is never complete. There is always time missing. Sometimes the amount of time is minimal (<1,000 years or so) and other times there may be millions of years missing.
I don’t understand how gases can result in terrestrial fossils. And the inner Cretaceous seaway was not a “catastrophic event.” The amount of time that it would have taken for the seaway to form is certainly 100’s if not 1,000’s or a few million years. More than enough time for organisms to migrate away at a safe slow speed to new habitat.

“Interesting, isn't it, that there are fossils in the ocean? I can very easily imagine that there is a distinct possibility that much that was affected by the raging waters of the flood may have been washed out to sea. “

Keep in mind that these fossils are largely marine, and the plant spores are the result of wind-blown sediments that were dumped into the water and then collected at the bottom of the ocean. The sahara in Africa is a HUGE source of particulate matter that is found in these cores (especially the ones off of the coast of Africa) and within these air-blown sediments we get plant spores and lipids.

One of your arguments centered around the consumption of the dead organisms. This too is something that would be evident geochemically. Consumption would result in the production of fecal matter, and the plants themselves would have all been buried at the same time. If this were the case we could use the Carbon isotope signature to determine the relative amount of carbon (dead stuff) being buried. If there was a massive amount of fecal matter and plant material being buried in one sudden event we would see a negative shift in the δ13C record within the rocks (particularly carbonates being formed in the presumably undisturbed limestones). I use these types of isotopes in my research and I have become familiar with these types of occurrences, and there is not one that in a stratigraphic interval of any magnitude that would correspond with such an event.

“Now it is my turn to not understand: so we do find the same "small marine life" in both upper and lower levels?

These small marine invertebrates are found in upper levels which are not found in the lower? I am not sure what point this makes, if you could clarify, please.”

We do not find the same marine fossils in the lower portions that we find in the upper sections. We also do not find terrestrial fossils buried along-side marine fossils in the upper units. Terrestrial fossils may be above and below marine fossils but not with marine fossils.

“Certain insect species may have inhabited a host corpse and survived thus. But, if a species had a limited number of survivors, this may have contributed to their extinction.”
Limited numbers leading to extinction? Like having only two of every organism left on Earth on a single boat? This would have been the greatest extinction event on Earth because the limited numbers of animals from Noah’s boat would have surely resulted in the extinction of nearly everything.
Dragonflies again
I am no dragonfly expert but they are fairly closely related. They are not the same species but they are still in the same groupings as modern dragonflies. They would have lived in similar environments.

Radiometric Dating
We could do an entire thread on this, but suffice it say that there is no evidence that suggests that our estimates of radioactive decay is wrong by any measure great enough to shift our age estimates very far from a 4.567 billion year old Earth to a young Earth of only a few thousand years. The laws of physics and nature do not change and radiometric decay is not only constant but so is entropy. If rates of decay were accelerated at the creation of Earth or at the time of the flood, the heat generated would have been enough to melt the Earth!

I appreciate the replies but I also feel we are chasing our tails. I am unsure of whether or not you are considering the possibility of my responses to be correct at all. I have tried thinking of ways to test for a flood or a young Earth (I have a thread on it called ‘The Stratigraphic Record and the Fossil Record.’ I have tried to devise ways to test for a global flood and a young Earth but the hypotheses do not hold up to the test and the evidence.
Cheers

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2011, 09:34 PM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2011 11:51 PM by cufflink.)
RE: Was banned for asking...
S.T.,

First of all, thanks for your response. I genuinely appreciate it.

(29-09-2011 06:05 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  You know, I do not consider this to be an invalid question. There would be things that might cause me to question God's existence, and to doubt that His word is not true.

These would be internal things, for the most part, such as the work He has done in my life to date. If I were to once again fall into drug or alcohol abuse.

I’m very glad your addictions are behind you—that’s great. But your answer surprises me. I would have expected something more like, “God has given me a gift [in this case, freedom from addiction]. If he were ever to take that gift away, I would know it was all part of his plan, and I would not question his will. Sometimes he moves in mysterious ways, but that would not lessen my faith in him or lead me to question his existence.” In any event, if that’s what it would take to make you doubt God, I hope you don’t get the chance.

Quote:However, as scripture gives testimony to, though God appeared before you and said, "I am here, you may now believe," I do not think that would without doubt, convince you. It did not convince many in scripture who had such evidence. I do not say that to offend, just to point out that "evidence" does not sway man's natural desire to do what he likes.

Not offended in the least. But you’re quite wrong. As I said before, if God were real and wanted to convince me of his existence, he’d know exactly how to do it, since he’d know my mind better than I do. And I’d be thrilled. I mean, who wouldn’t be? How great would it be to think there’s an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being watching over you, protecting you, loving you, wanting only the best for you—all that good stuff? But I’m a realist. I look at the world the way it is, and I see not the slightest shred of evidence that that’s the case. So I say again to this supposed being, “God, if you exist, make yourself known to me. They say you talked directly to all these people in the past; what am I, chopped liver? Don’t play favorites! Talk to me too and I’ll believe in you.” Sadly, I’ve had no response. Still waiting. He’d better get on the ball, though. He’s had over six decades to communicate with me; time is getting short.

Quote:Even as we debate certain things here, your and my belief cannot always be said to be rooted in concrete evidences. I know I am the only one here that will admit that, but if all were honest, who here who holds to atheism have not taken for granted "scientific proofs" rather than doing the actual research themselves. You have no idea who is telling the truth, who is lying who is withholding "evidence?"

I’m not a physicist or geologist or biologist, and you’re right—although I have some education in science and math, I haven’t done research myself in those areas. So when scientists tell me the earth is 4.54 billion years old, or that South America once butted up against Africa, or that birds evolved from dinosaurs, I accept those facts as the testimony of experts. But the point is, reports of the research supporting those findings are available for everyone to see. They’re part of a vast, interconnected edifice called Science, and all our practical experience tells us that science works.

Now I suppose it’s logically possible for scientists to be secretly joined together in a monumental conspiracy, falsifying data, lying, withholding evidence, pulling the wool over the eyes of a gullible public. But like most conspiracy theories, that’s absurd. In science, the satisfaction and the glory come from being right—or at least coming up with a better theory than the previous one, a theory that explains more data. Except in extremely rare cases that inevitably result in humiliation for the perpetrator when they’re discovered, there’s no ignoring or withholding of data—unlike those who try to force the round peg of religion into the square hole of science. So yes, accepting science involves making certain assumptions about the validity of scientific process. But to equate those assumptions with religious faith, where you begin with a faith-based conclusion and then look around for facts that could support it, doesn’t wash.

Quote:I do not see myself as impervious to temptation, nor do I think that I am above falling into a state where my faith might be lacking...this happens sometimes. However, I do feel that by God's word there are promises made to His children that are inviolable. I do not believe that I am capable of "not believing," as I have read here as the testimony of some.

Let me ask you this: do you believe in miracles? Have you never once heard of something that, well, science just had no answer for? I have, in the short time I have been a Christian, been witness to things that defy explanation, such as a man diagnosed with terminal cancer of such a vicious nature...still alive well after his death sentence was rendered by doctors.

I do not believe in miracles, which I take to mean supernatural explanations for observed phenomena. I do believe that things sometimes happen for which we have no current explanation. That just means that science isn’t complete—if it ever will be. Yesterday we didn’t know why a middle-aged man suddenly clutches his chest and keels over; today we know about coronary artery disease. Today we don’t know why certain advanced cancers suddenly go into remission; tomorrow we may.

But if you say “God did it,” then you open up a stadium-sized can of worms. Because if God really does intervene in human affairs by, for example, suddenly curing terminal cancers, why does he play favorites? Why did he cure little Billy’s cancer but didn’t do the same for Johnny and Janey and Joey? I know . . . mysterious ways. Wink

Quote:I will ask another question. And this will be the last one: you say you have read my lengthy posts ( guess this is just something looked down on by some on all types of forums) . . .

Whoa! Where did I put you down for writing lengthy posts? Smile Not at all! I’m constantly impressed by the effort people on this forum put into their posts, you very much included.

Quote: . . . have you also read the responses? Have you noticed that there is some extreme emotion (which cannot be denied) on the parts of some? I myself like to think that is generated by the internal conflict which always accompanies the conviction that falls upon hearts when God is speaking to them.

Sure I’ve noticed the emotion. And I can see how you might want to interpret it as you have. My own interpretation is different: I think it generally comes from the frustration of feeling you’re talking to a wall—the feeling that no evidence you’ve presented, or could possibly present, can ever get through to the other person. (And I acknowledge you might be feeling the same thing.) That was what prompted my original question to you.

Quote:You might laugh, scoff even, but God will appear to you, though it will not be in a manner you might think. Stop looking for glowing clouds and angelic forms, instead...listen to your heart.

I’m afraid both my brain and my heart tell me that no appearance is imminent. If I do hear anything, though, you’ll be the first to know. Smile

Take care.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2011, 10:13 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
Hello BeardedDude, wanted to finish up this post before moving on.

I hope you don't get discouraged by the conversation, and I would just say that the knowledge you have from both a scientific perspective and (more importantly) a working knowledge of this field can benefit many such as myself who really do not get involved in the "nitty-gritty" details. One thing that I have found true in life, and this includes many arenas, is that oftentimes those who have knowledge are hesitant to be as forthcoming with what they know for various reasons.

This is something I told myself I would not do when I first recognized in my own trade. I hope you will be willing to educate others with the knowledge you have, even when the tendency to become irritated may surface, as it does sometimes when people who have knowledge are questioned about that knowledge.

I assure you, I do not ask questions with the intent of challenging your knowledge, or your particular interpretation of that knowledge, it is sincerely out of curiosity. I have been accused of "not listening" to what others say or dismissing certain knowledge since I have been here, which is just not true. I am interested in what you have to say, and feel you are in a position as one who works in the field to a good one to talk to about this type of thing.

So, I hope you are willing to put up with some questions (and comments), I am both naturally inquisitive, as well as a bit of a skeptic. But again, I try to put forth my questions in as least offensive manner as I can.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “I would need you to explain this a little more before I could offer an opinion. So far I am under the impression that there is a layer that contained marine fossils, then above that a layer that contains both marine and terrestial fossils. Which layer is it that does not contain the bunnies and humans, and which is it that you would expect to see them, if there was a flood?

I would guess it is the upper layer, right?

And I am also guessing you are saying that there is no fossil record within this layer of creatures that exist today, is that right?”

The lower units are the layers that do not contain any of the organisms from the upper layers. The lowermost Phanerozoic unit is the Cambrian. It is the oldest of the Phanerozoic units and within it, we have 0 terrestrial fossils and 0 vertebrates.

I am guessing that because there are no terrestial organisms found in the lower, this is thought to be evidence for evolution. I can understand that, really. It does not sway my view, but, we have only just begun, right? As I said, there are great expositors that believe the earth is millions of years old, and while I do not embrace this belief, I am always willing to admit that man, and me in particular, can be in error.

Those who hold to Theistic Evolution as well as a Pre-Adamic Race have some note-worthy advocates, but, at this time, I am still a young earther, and I believe that the world as we know it will, based upon certain calculations, enter into the last thousand years very soon. I know how absurd that may sound, but that is just my belief.

That others do not believe this does not change my theology, nor does it negate theirs. I expect one day to have full knowledge of earths history, and to be honest, I can't wait. I have many things that I would like to know, but I do not think that, concerning some issues, we can know them at this time. As far as what we can know, from scripture, that is what I try to focus on.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If we were to recede flood waters globally, we should expect some of the carcasses (or at least some of their bones) to be washed out into these lower layers,

But why assume that these "lower levels" are in fact the lower levels? The presence or absence of fossils in any given area does, in my view, "close the case," so to speak. If anything, when considering something of the magnitude of a global flood, where I would expect to find everything "washed to" would be the sea. Where does the silt and decay in our rivers end up? Is it not in the sea?

And again, throw into the calculation great upheavel at a foundational level where we could expect volcanic activity, earthquakes, et cetera, and imagine the possibilities. How can we dogmatically say that destruction of "evidence" didn't happen when these things occurred, and that much evidence was relocated to the lower parts of the earth?

These are just things that come to mind. If I were to look into this particular field of study, I am sure I would learn things that would either corroborate or preclude such simple thoughts, but I seriously doubt that anything I can learn from indepth scientific research would absolutely cause me to deny a global flood. That is something I do feel is valid information, and yes, it is a position based on faith, but that is just something I hold to.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  or we would have expected at least some portion of these unfortunate animals to be either A) trapped and caught in the lower elevations or

The assumption is that these levels would have recorded the event of the flood. I don't know what other creationists have to say about the matter, for I have not spent time looking at their side, either. As with any debate, you are going to find good and bad arguments, theories, "evidences," et cetera. Usually it goes like this: one side says, "Because of this, we know______" (fill in the blank). Then the other side, in order to give an answer, tries to negate the others' information by saying "______" (and again fill in the blank).

What I have learned is this: step away from what the other side is saying, and approach the matter yourself, and look at the information. This is especially true of bible interpretation. If one approaches the bible with either the intent to discredit those he is in opposition to, rather than an unbiased search for the truth, that is, to find what is in the bible, they will do better than adding the confusion of what is sometimes very good presentation of "truth."

It is like those who identify counterfeit money: they do not study the counterfeit...they study real money. This is how I try to approach everything. I do this on a daily basis. If I listen to what I am told about what needs to be repaired, I can both help or hurt myself. I can be given clues as to what the problem is, or I can bias my judgment which might make me look at the wrong component/s, because the information, though sincere, was incorrect.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  B) some of the ones who died prior to the flood should have been buried along with the lower unit organisms.

Let me ask you this, and it includes something I asked before: today, can we look at certain conditions and say, "This will become a fossil because of the conditions that exist?" I would assume the answer is yes. Now, along with this, I would ask, "How long does it take for something to become a fossil?"

"Will certain conditions either speed up or slow down the process?" Such as pressure, temperature, et cetera.

My last question, which would need to be answered for my own benefit, before I would even speculate, would be, "What kind of fossils could be produced within an approximate period of about a thousand years?"

I will have to revisit some notes, but in Genesis 5:27, we see that Methusaleh lived 969 years, Adam being about 687 at the time of his birth. This gives an approximate time-frame of about 1250 years. Keep in mind I have not looke at this in a while, and admit my calculations might be off. We could give Adam's lifespan alone and know scripture implies 930 years between creation and the flood, but I think the 1250 years is more accurate.

Now, with that timeframe in mind, would you be willing to say that it is scientifically impossible beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fossil record we now have did not come from that time. Put aside, for just a moment, your belief in an old earth, and just tell me that this is a ludicrous belief, or, in theory, conditions could have possibly been present to create the limited fossil record we have.

Something to add to this would be that before the fall, there were no "thorns or thistles (Gen. 3:18)," so as I look at the record of plants that at one time existed and do not now, as well as plants (weeds, basically) that exist now but did not then is not a great mystery to me, nailing down evolution as unquestionable. Which is why I have said, I believe that things are "winding down," not...getting better. Does not even science hold to this? Predicting that one day the sun will expend itself? Same principle, though, at an excelerated rate.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “But do we not also have footprints above, as well? Why would the existence of footprints below what some believe to be the layer from the flood preclude that there would footprints below?

I don't see that the existence of both denies one or the other? But perhaps you could expand on that.”


Footprints imply land. I need a surface to create the footprint. We have tetrapod footprints in the Paleozoic, reptile footprints in the Mesozoic, and mammal footprints in the Cenozoic. Paleozoic = lowermost layers, Mesozoic = the middle layers and Cenozoic = the upper layers. Why would we see a segregation of footprints throughout the fossil record if all of the animals where heading towards higher ground at the same time? Especially if it is not a function of speed.

I would have to be educated concerning the scientific findings to really respond to this without sounding like a complete idiot, though, I am not too proud to admit my ignorance about many things.

I guess one question would be your definition of a tetrapod, and how these are distinguished from the reptiles in the Mesozoic, meaning, are there no reptiles in the Paleozoic?


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Plants

I will concede that there are fossilized seeds, but this does not explain why plants are also segregated in the fossil record.

This was just brought up because it was asserted that plant life would have been decimated had the earth been under water for a year, as well as the question asked if Noah brought all plants on board the Ark. It need not be pursued, but I will remind you that certain foods (plantlife) were brought on board according to the record of scripture (Gen 6:21), and that plantlife can be sustained through seeds, though they "die."

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Perhaps that is the biggest discrepancy. Why are plants in the lower older sections different from those in the upper? In the lower sections we get Sigilaria and Lepidodendron but they die out (go extinct) well before the Cenozoic. And flowering plants do not first appear in the fossil record until the Cretaceous. Not a single seed, leaf, or flower from a flowering plant prior to that.

I would very much like to know more about these plants. As I believe that life is winding down, I can imagine that perhaps the nutrition value of such plants may very well have been the reason for such long lifespans in humans at that time. Coupled with that the absence of the poisons mankind dumps on the earth in alarming rates, not to mention that poisons we buy in the foods we eat today.

That we find no fossil record of flowering plants does not, in my opinion (and that is all it is), preclude that there were flowering plants. It is interesting, though, that the creation account lists grass, herbs, and fruit trees, but not specifically "flowering plants," though we know that fruit trees do flower.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Isn't that speculation? Can science say for certain that the water of the sea and the water from below the earth (the fountains of the deep) as well as that above the earth (rain)...thoroughly mixed?

We can see in scripture that it seems only creatures from land were collected, there is no indication that the creatures of the waters were, which makes sense in that they would have been able to survive in their natural habitat.

Here is a question that science could probably answer: what is the ratio of fresh water to sea water on the earth?

Now, if there were a cataclysmic upheavel and the water below the earth were to surface, what would we expect to happen with the current land structure we have today? Could we expect there to be a thorough and complete mixing of both fresh and saltwater, or could we speculate that there would be pockets of fresh here, saltwater there.

Also, another question I would seek an answer to would be this: of the dinosaurs that we believe to have populated the waters, can we say for certain that they had a capability or lack the capability to exist in water other than their natural habitat. I myself would guess no.

Which brings to mind evolution itself. If life has adaptive capabilities (and we know it does), would we negate the possibility of survival in a crisis moment, or would we speculate that at least some species could, in that crisis moment, overcome, at least temporarily, the changes that suddenly come upon their living conditions?”

97.1% of the water on the surface of the Earth is saltwater. Of the remaining 3% of freshwater, 2.24% is in the polar ice caps, groundwater is 0.6%, freshwater lakes are 0.009%, rivers are 0.001% and the atmosphere is <0.001%. Freshwater to seawater (even melting the ice caps) is 32:1.

Very interesting stats.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Any water below the surface is freshwater, so if any water were to come from underground it would mix with the water above. Given that only 0.6% of all of the water on Earth is groundwater, how is that anywhere near enough to flood all of the land?

Who said that all the water of the flood went back underground...lol?

This is just my belief, but consider: scripture records a division between the waters above and below the firmment (basically the sky) and that the waters under the firmament were "gathered together in one place" that land might appear.

In the flood, we have the fountains of the deep broken up, as well as the water above the firmament now coming down from where they were. When all these things are considered, we have what would seem to be an event where the water that was on the earth actually increased. As I said, it is just my opinion that high mountains were created during the recession of the flood, and that this was part of how the waters receded, land masses surging upward as tectonic movement brought about great upheavel.

Consider the great caverns of the world, are they not extensive? Are these not possible candidates that might account for at least some of the water that came up, though it did not return from whence it came?

I know this is probably laughed at, but, it is jsut my opinion, not something I state as dogmatic truth.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Even if there were very little mixing, most marine and freshwater species are completely intolerant of brackish conditions. Take any freshwater fish and put him in a brackish aquarium and see how long he lives. Hint: It won’t be 40 days. The saltwater will actually dehydrate him.

Agreed, but that was not my point. My point is this: can science look at the fossil record of these fish and say dogmatically they were not osmoregulators? Can they determine the nutrition value of now extinct plants found in the fossil record?

I would greatly like to have that answered. It would, for me, help me look at my opinions and evaluate certain assumptions.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Survival via evolution is about a response that takes generations of breeding to accomplish.

But extinction, I would guess, does not always take generations, but can happen quickly.

One thing I would say is this: when it comes to survival of the fittest, would we not also calculate that intellectual superiority has a role as well? Although Arnold Schwarzeneggar being a Governor does throw this into question...lol, just kidding.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  An individual organism cannot tolerate brackish conditions or even periods of elevated temperatures for more than a few hours or days at the most.

But would you really make a blanket statement about all life such as this? Can you say the record precludes that marine life had better systems, and osmoregulators were more abundant in the past? We have even today some amazing examples of "adapting and overcoming."


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  These are easy tests to conduct by simply taking organisms alive today and evaluating their salinity threshold, or temperature thresholds.

Okay, now include in your tests the marine life...of then. That is what I mean. I don't think it can be shown that all life is as it was then. It is assumed that evolution makes life better, but I challenge the idea that the tiger is a better specimen than the sabre-tooth. See what I mean?

One of these, by the way, was supposedly found in a large underground lake. It had died there because it could not get out. I was amazed to learn of such places, truly another thing that is fascinating to me.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For brackish conditions it is because of osmosis that organisms cannot survive. If they are saltwater organisms, all of the salts in their body diffuse out and they die. If they are freshwater organisms and they are in saltwater, they cannot obtain freshwater to rehydrate themselves and they die (this is why we can’t drink saltwater and survive).

But this is not true of all species in totality. We do have existing fish that can survive in both. It may be that one day they too will disappear, as their ability to exist under these conditions deteriorates, possibly hastened by toxins introduced into their habitat.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “This is where I depart from my brethren that hold to an old earth position (and I know you will think me an idiot for my belief, but this is just my belief. I do not despise or ridicule those who believe the earth is millions of years old, some that I respect very much believe this way). I hold to the view that it was during the time of the flood that such lofty mountains were created. There is very little scriptural evidence for this belief, but, nonetheless, it is just what I believe. I know you, being in the work you are, may see this as silly (perhaps worse), but, it just seems to me to be what fits in the scriptural account of world history.

I believe that at the time of the flood the earth was (you're going to laugh)...flat. In the sense that mountains were not as high as they are today. I believe at the time of the flood, there is great upheavel and at this time we see the "fountains of the deep" opened up, and the "water above the firmament" coming down.

I also believe that when the waters receded, at this time, possibly (and I will point out this is merely speculation on my part, as I am sure you will heartily agree...just my opinion, not something I am saying is dogmatically true), the Lord raised mountains, split the earth in places...all to facilitate the recession of the waters of the flood.

I know that may be scoffed at, but, that is just my belief. “



If this were the case there would be no record of the flood because there would be no sediment.

This assumes that it would be possible to identify sediment as coming from that event, as well denying the possibility that all sediment was swept out to sea. Which brings me to this question: do you you believe that all of the continents were at one joined? What did they call that? Pangea?



(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In order to create sedimentary layers, you need elevated land that is being eroded and broken down into sediment, and then transported by water.

What are your views concerning the Grand Canyon? Some say that it is a mystery as to where the displaced earth went to.

In my state, and probably nationwide, erosion control is very serious business. Silt fences are mandatory, that the streams, rivers, and bays are protected from man's disruption of the earth. I see no reason to think it not possible that immersion on such a grand scale would not have actually scoured the land, so to speak. Remember, you are dealing with extended periods of time, whereas from my view the events happened within a year. I think it possible that erosion may have continued beyond this point, but, I am not locked into trying to analyze events where everything has to be kept in such a great amount of time. If it is true that the world is billions of years old, then an event such as the flood in such a long timespan would be like trying to seclude a particular year in the life of a tree. However, I do not think that such an event would stand out like a fire in a tree's history would, where we could tell that at this time it suffered being burned.

It would be more like trying to determine the effects of a particular hurricane at the Outer Banks among the thousands that have hit it. The evidence would be so close that distinguishing between the effects of the storms would be nearly impossible.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If you believe that there was no significant elevations prior to the flood, then there would be no record of the flood.

Why is that? More importantly, why would I assume there is actually a record of the flood to be found? And do I, who am charged by God to have faith and to believe without seeing...need to have evidence? Jesus said "an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign shall be given it," and that is something that I keep in mind. That does not mean I follow blindly the teachings of men, in either theological or secular matters, but instead it is a simple faith that God is God, and I...am me.

As far as there being no record because there were no "higher elevations," the reverse is true: what might have been evidence could have been completely destroyed in the process of creating mountains. But I don't know. Nor does any man, I believe. I do not think that even scientists would be bold enough to say, "We now know everything!" This is part of science, a continuing pursuit to understand things we do not.

In the history of science, things have been declared as the final word, and then changed based upon new, relevant information. One of these (that bugs me) is the toothbrush: I don't know how old you are, but when I was a kid, toothbrushes had to be flat and firm. Today, you can spend an hour looking at the hundreds of variations that go against what was once believed (and I mention this because this really does irritate me...I mean, come on, lets change the law to limit only three types of toothbrushes...lol).


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And does the bible not mention mountains prior to the story of the flood?

I am doing this on wordpad because the system here is very slow, so I cannot insert the link, but you can see here http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2022&t=KJV (Just copy and paste...I may try to edit this, but I am running out of time) to look at this for yourself. I would of course have to put more into this than just a look at "mountains or hills" but I will just say that I don't think it can be shown that mountains were as large as they are today, but at the same time neither would I say that without doubt they were not.

We see in Genesis 7:19 the first mention of mountains, also called/translated hills. The waters submerged them, but that does not preclude the Lord rearranging the earth topologically in the recession.




(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Where are you getting your opinion from on this matter?

As I said, this is a personal view, not one I say that scripture teaches clearly. Where do I get it? Various verses, such as Psalm 104, which I posted earlier. In that Psalm, I see an indication that while creation may be in view, I also see that the flood may be referenced as well.


Psalm 104


5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

Vv. 5 & 6 speak, I think, of creation. However, if we look at v. 9, it would not make sense to see this as anything but a reference to the flood, or we would negate the flood occurring at all.

Verse 8 speaks of valleys "founded" (properly to found, fix, lay foundation) for the waters, and while I see this as a reference in general to water systems, I also see in the context things pertaining, I believe, specifically to the flood.


Not trying to bore you with scripture, but consider another place also:

Psalm 90
1Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.

2Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Again, and it may just be me, but I see the mountains brought forth and creation itself distinguished, possibly, as two separate events.

I would be curious to know where scientists stand concerning the formation of mountains, whether they believe mountains to have developed over time, or, if they were maybe in place and then slowly uncovered by receding (or changing) oceans.




(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Since evolution teaches adaptation, I would ask two questions: 1) can science be dogmatic as to whether life at this time could or could not survive in brackish water; 2) can we dogmatically say that marine life has not actually become a weaker species to where introduction to a foreign environment would result in death?”


1) Yes. We can conduct those tests on living organisms and demonstrate an individual’s inability to survive in brackish conditions.

We can conduct tests on those living today, but, my question was more to the effect of whether, by the fossil record, they can deny osmoregulation as a possibility for the fossil itself. I would guess no.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  2) Yes. Same as above. It is because of the loss of salts in the cells that results in swelling of the cells and ultimately death.


Again, I have to question this based on the fact that we do not have a living specimen to analyze (maybe the technology of Jurassic Park may be possible one day...we can only hope, right?).

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Terrestrial Sand dunes
These are deposits like those of the famous Checkerboard Mesa. These are terrestrial deposits where sand grains are deposited via air currents. If I flood them, I will wash them away and I will sort the grains in a different way because of the new energy source (i.e. the water).

Interesting factor, the sorting of grains, I mean. But is it not safe to assume that this sifting would require a lengthy time?

I am sure there is a sifting evident in recent events such as the tsunami which hit the Philipines, or in streams and rivers, but would we expect such sifting in a global event, and would we deny the possibility that rather than sifting, we could expect such material to be washed away entirely?

And the creation of terrestial sand dune...how long would it take for this to occur? If there were a global climate change (which I do believe in, by the way, though I do not hold to the current global warming scare) such as I believe happened as a result of the flood, where the "canopy" which surrounded the earth was sent to earth (a small part of it still active in the evaporation and condensation process), bringing about a change to what was possibly an earth that had moderate global temperature to current conditions today? Such as the polar caps, which I personally believe came after the flood.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Stream deposits
If I am flooding everything, I should see streams depositing sediment and if I am receding the water I should see streams cutting into sediment. We see both types of streams (depositional streams and erosional streams in all layers of the rock record).

Which makes sense. However, this is a record of slow moving events, rather than the event of the flood. The disruptive nature lasting months, not years or decades, or millennia. Why would I discount the possibility that flood evidence would have been erased due to the event itself?

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “This one I can offer a suggestion about, but would first ask this: how long does science say that it takes for Ikaite to form?

I did google this in hopes of having at least a little understanding of your point, and think it is a valid question, though, it causes me to look at my own trade and the science involved in that to ponder this question.

Because I do not believe that there were glaciers at the time of the flood itself, I ask the question, how is it that conditions could exist where freezing temperatures could form something that would break down in warmer temperatures.

Working daily with refrigerants, I can create substantially below freezing temperatures with the gases I work with. Have, in fact, been burned by the pressure changes of them. Hence the question, how long would freezing temperatures have to be sustained for the formation of akaite?

If the earth were experiencing upheavel, I would expect that involved in the process would be conditions that would depart from the norm, such as the example of water being poured on excessive temperatures, and rather than extinguishing the fire, chemical breakdown occurs actually increasing the fire's intensity.

Keep in mind this is just a passing thought, I have not the time to devote to looking at this in detail as it would deserve, so, go easy on me.

Anyway, I ask: is it not possible that the formation of akaite could have resulted due to gas pressures created from an upheavel that veruy probably involved volcanic activity? Just a thought.”

Freezing temperatures are not necessary, temperatures below +7 degrees Celsius are.

You will have to excuse my ignorance, BD, I am just not very familiar with the celsius scale. THis is an interesting train of thought, but to be honest, I would have to have more information to give any reasonable input into the discussion.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And they would need to be sustained for decades? I am not entirely certain.


Thanks for the honesty. As far as temperature conditions, again, I would just say that we really do not know all circumstances which would arise from an event such as the flood. That is just my opinion. I can, as in the example of gases and pressures, speculate that some very odd circumstances could have been introduced.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  They form within sediments though. They do not from on the surface.

Good enough.


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In the sediments themselves the temperatures are much more stable and do not vary seasonally. And the ikiaite in my study area is now a glendonite. It is no longer the mineral ikiaite but is now calcite, but it retains the crystal habit of ikiaite.

Imagine a liquid gas pocket underground that is at some point vented, though restricted. The release of pressure would cause evaporation and we could expect to see variance in the effects of the release as we travel from the center outward. I can imagine conditions that would sustain a variety of temperatures for extended periods where each locality is different (with different results) depending on its location. If this happened in many places which were in close proximity, we might have a possible solution to how certain compositions came into existance.

Just speculation, but really, in this world...all things are possible, for the most part. Right?


(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Ikiaite is metastable, so when temperatures increase the water molecules within its crystal structure are driven off and the leftover is simply calcite. But, since the crystal grew as ikiaite and the calcite is secondary, it retains the crystal habit of the ikiaite and is known as a glendonites.

Okay, I can believe that.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As for upheaval causing the formation…I can’t see how that would help it grow, only hurt it. Ikiaite would need stable conditions, not turbulent conditions.

There would be many different circumstances and scenarios involved, I would imagine.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I started a new thread called “The Stratigraphic Record and the Fossil Record.” See if there is anything else I say in that thread that is not said here.

I will try to check it out. I have enjoyed the discussion, it is always fun to broach new subjects.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I appreciate your response and the challenging questions.

Hope that lasts...lol.

(24-09-2011 05:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And getting paid to study fossils is hardly a job…more like completely awesome!

This I can believe with no uncertainty. Thanks for the discussion.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2011, 12:45 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  S.T.,

First of all, thanks for your response. I genuinely appreciate it.

As do I. This is a great response, one I look forward to answering.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I’m very glad your addictions are behind you—that’s great. But your answer surprises me. I would have expected something more like, “God has given me a gift [in this case, freedom from addiction]. If he were ever to take that gift away, I would know it was all part of his plan, and I would not question his will. Sometimes he moves in mysterious ways, but that would not lessen my faith in him or lead me to question his existence.” In any event, if that’s what it would take to make you doubt God, I hope you don’t get the chance.

While I do admit that a general teaching found in scripture is that God will allow bad things to happen to His people, and in fact, we are specifically told by the Lord that while we are in the world we will suffer tribulation, I do have to distinguish between events in the lives of both believers and unbelievers.

My return to drugs and alcohol would be, and this is just my opinion formed based upon my current understanding of scripture, self imposed, rather than a "divine lesson."

I can say that with a certain amount of authority based upon the fact that sorcery is forbidden and is listed as an indicator of not having a relationship with the Lord, and more importantly, that one is not...a child of God. This is why there is much confusion in the world concerning God, and the root cause is a lack of understanding as to what scripture actually teaches.

When one is born again, there is a change that evidences itself in the thoughts and actions of the individual. This is scoffed at when presented as an "evidence" of salvation, but, that is what scripture teaches. Involved is repentance, which is a "change of mind" in the individual, which for the most part can be replicated by non-believers very well, hence, religion. One can "reform" oneself," but one cannot "transform" oneself as scripture teaches concerning the "spiritual resurrection" that takes place in the life of the individual.

So, no worries, I do not foresee a "chance" that my faith will be tested in such a way as a return to drugs and alcohol, though I do not kid myself that slothfulness on my part can land me in the same place that I have seen many who may or may not have actually been saved are in. Time spent in the word is one of the ways that I can have communion with God, and witnessing is when I feel His presence the strongest. I believe that this is due to my attempt to allow God to speak through me, rather than just blathering about what it is I know that I wish to relay to someone else.

This is one of the things that I try to do: listen. I have learned the value of listening to people, and I try not to take an approach of, "Here I am, folks...Hear me!" Something else I believe the Lord has taught me is not to despise those who hold different views than mine, and to remember that those views...I once held myself. But to listen, and understand the reasons why people are who they are.

Okay, sorry, didn't mean to get longwinded on the first point. I do try to keep things to a minimum, but if we are to understand each other, we will have to leave the one-line blogisphere from time to time.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Not offended in the least. But you’re quite wrong. As I said before, if God were real and wanted to convince me of his existence, he’d know exactly how to do it, since he’d know my mind better than I do.

You say I am "quite wrong," are you certain of that? It is true that God knows you better than you know yourself, but if God is real, why would you think that He would do things according to how you feel they should be done? I don't say this to offend, but in an effort to get you to think about that.

Scripture makes it clear that God's will is that man obey Him, but it also expresses that God is not willing that any should perish. Just like the example of me returning to drugs as a test, so to speak, this would actually be a contradiction, a true one, if this were true. God does not say, "Do this," and then make it impossible for someone not to do it. I do not personally believe there will be one person that genuinely wants to have a relationship with God that He will withhold this from them, or make it impossible.

Now you say, "God, prove your existence to me," and when He does not do so according to your expectation, you say, "See, told ya, there is no God." But scripture is clear that God has in these "last days" spoken to man through His Son, Jesus Christ. Now how is it that Jesus can speak to a man today? He does so through His Body...the Church. Please take seriously what I say. Before images of charlatan preachers on TV, or the tainted history of Catholicism, or the David Koresh types push this as a serious statement out of your mind, let me just say that the true Body of Christ has always been a minority in the historical record. While mainstream "Christian" groups have had a dominant world presence, there has always been a "remnant" of true believers that belong to God. Israel and her history is a picture given by God both in reality as well as in scripture of this principle. Scripture teaches a many/few ratio between believers and unbelievers, though the mainstream "figureheads" seem to be the real deal, such as the Pharisees and Saducees in Jesus' day.

They were in possession of facts, but "their hearts were far from God." So it is today, so it will be in the future, should the Lord tarry.

In this age, God does not speak to people as He has in the past, such as directly (as to Adam and Abraham), through prophets (though I view the true expository preacher as the equivalent of this role today), and, when establishing new revelation, such as in the beginning of the Church, through Apostles.

Throughout much of that time, God has consistently spoken to men through His word, examples being found in the Hebrew record, usually in times of great apostasy and persecution (such as the captivities Israel suffered).

But Jesus also said, "They will hate you because they hated me first." So we have a dilemma: how will God speak to someone that hates His children? We believe that Christ takes up residence in us the very moment salvation takes place. And while how Christ speaks through various believers is dependant upon certain things, such as the knowledge they have concerning Himself, their obedience to yield to His leading, one thing will always be constant among true believers, and that is Who they view Christ to be, and how man can be saved.

Religion will always complicate this very simple process by imposing laws or guidelines which must be followed in order to be saved. This is always the result of failure to properly understand scriptural teaching. And before "denominational diversity" is appealed to, let me say again: if you could speak to born again believers that have at least a modest understanding of scripture, you will find them almost to a man in agreement concerning primary doctrine. They will affirm that salvation is through faith in Christ...alone. Not a rigorous religious obstacle course. There will be variance about what most would call secondary issues, but concerning major doctrine, you will find agreement.

That does not mean that there will not be variance among the disciples, though, and this is where we get into the unredeemed aspect of the born again believer. We still have a body that apart from our spiritual experience is subject to this world, such as appetite, for instance. A natural condition of human living, but we have the choice of what we feed our bodies for survival. The same is true spiritually, we can grow up and partake of meat, or we can crawl along the floor like spiritual infants, putting things in our mouths without knowing whether they are harmful or not.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  And I’d be thrilled. I mean, who wouldn’t be?

You might be surprised that faith in Christ is not without times of grief. Consider when you were a child, before knowing how the world is, and the things that take place. I do have a joy in my salvation that cannot be diminished, and that has grown as I have come to know the Lord better. But...you know the old saying, "Ignorance is bliss?" It can be bittersweet sometimes due to the fact that we are still here and dealing with the world.

But, I understand what you mean. And I agree.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  How great would it be to think there’s an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being watching over you, protecting you, loving you, wanting only the best for you—all that good stuff?

It is great, though, it is not all "good stuff."

Man wants to thnk that relationship with God should be all roses, no thorns. This is similar to the young, unmarried perception as to how marriage will be. Not until we get in there do we see that marriage can be work, sometimes. It involves a maturing process, a learning process. Don't get me wrong, I love my wife and feel blessed of God to be married to her. But I would be lying if I said there is never any problems. In fact, I tell people quite often, "I did not start truly 'growing up' until I got married." I believe this with all my heart. One thing marriage will do is teach you that, "It isn't just about you anymore."

But. lest I persuade you that salvation is something not to be desired, let me just say that the roses far exceed the thorns.

Just like marriage, if properly observed, far exceeds lonliness.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But I’m a realist.

As am I. Which is why I do not tell people, "Hey, trust in Christ, then all your problems will be over!"

If anything, your problems may very well begin with salvation. You will see things differently, for one. I use to enjoy many things that I look back on and shudder at the doing them. As a realist, I can look at certain things and know, "This is not a desirable thing." It is somewhat like how I thought as a kid as opposed to how I thought as a young adult: when I was a kid, it seemed reasonable and desirous to have a refrigerator and freezer stocked with hot fudge sundaes and other "good things," rather than the "stuff" my parents fed me. What was wrong with them, anyway? Couldn't they see that those kinds of things were "better?"

So it is like that. While I might want to believe that certain things are better, there are reason why they are not. And this may not be a good example, but, I hope you see what I mean.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I look at the world the way it is, and I see not the slightest shred of evidence that that’s the case.

Stop looking at the world.

Stop looking at the mainstream representation of Who God is, and who the Church is.

You seem like someone that is capable of "looking into" things for himself, and that is what I would simply suggest. Approach scripture in a more scientific way, learning how to exegete the scriptures, rather than eisegete due to preconceived notions. This is something that even most "Christians" do not do, and it is easy to see with just a short conversation those who do so...and those who do not.

I know this may seem like nonsense, but hearing from God really is as easy as that. You don't need help from someone else to do this, as many might try to convince you. A priest asked Martin Luther, "Do you know wha would happen if scripture fell into the hands of the average man?" To which he responded, "Yes. There would be more Christians."

But most people take for granted that what men in places of authority say must be the truth, and I think one reason is this: in the hearts of all men, whether it is admitted or not, there is a deep respect for the Word of God. For most, the thought that one would be brazen enough to mishandle something that is considered holy would be unthinkable.

Kind of like we have a respect for law enforcement, and assume that the men and women in law enforcement would not abuse their position. But what happens is we see or hear about the abuses, which can result in distrust all the way to the extreme of despising it. There are some people who hate all law enforcement officers, period. Is that reasonable? Would we say all cops are bad because of those who are corrupt?

The same principle applies concerning scripture, I believe, and I will say that sometimes the hatred is justified, though at the same time the Body of Christ (which is not a particular denomination, by the way) suffers for their ignorance.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  So I say again to this supposed being, “God, if you exist, make yourself known to me. They say you talked directly to all these people in the past; what am I, chopped liver?

Weeelllll...

Just kidding. Your importance cannot be measured, my friend. Each of us contribute to this floating ball in some way or another, and I believe that there will be a time when God will speak to you, but, if you want to hear Him, perhaps it would be helpful if you went to Him, rather than demanding He come to you, and reveal Himself in a particular way. Don't get me wrong, He will come to you, but, there is a self-imposed barrier you have set up by demanding God conform to your will.

Sometimes He will break this barrier down. Jonah, for instance. Must have been Irish, is all I can guess (lol).

Saul, the Apostle, is another example. John Mark. But as a general rule, there is usually a desire and a willingness to honestly meet with God, and this will be on His terms, not mine.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Don’t play favorites!


Scripture teaches that God is no respecter of persons...the opportunity is available to all.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Talk to me too and I’ll believe in you.”

If you are waiting for an audible voice, I myself believe that He does not communicate to man in that fashion at this time. It is interesting to study the progression of revelation and the interaction of God with man through scripture. This age, the Church Age, began with very little direct interaction of God and man, and then only with those He used to establish the Church and their proclamation of the Gospel which showed the New Covenant had begun.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Sadly, I’ve had no response.

Don't give up. If you are serious, the bible is a good place to start. Learn to interpret, and measure the knowledge of God you now have with what scripture teaches. I know I am being a bit presumptuous, but understand, I am firm in my belief that usually a sound understanding of scripture will lead to repentance and salvation.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Still waiting. He’d better get on the ball, though. He’s had over six decades to communicate with me; time is getting short.

You are still young, really. I hate to say it, but you might have to live 40 more years...lol. We just don't know how long we have, but, again, you are waiting for God to do everything. If you were married, did you wait on your wife to begin the relationship? Poor example, I know, but a relationship will always be the result of at least two people. Right?

Not any different with a relationship with God, though I will say that salvation is wholly his work. By that I mean that He will bring about the circumstances you need in order to be obedient to the Gospel. First, He will see that you are exposed to His word, and it by this word that faith arises. He will usually do so through those He sends to accomplish this, but as I said, this can also occur by personal study of His word.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I’m not a physicist or geologist or biologist, and you’re right—although I have some education in science and math, I haven’t done research myself in those areas. So when scientists tell me the earth is 4.54 billion years old, or that South America once butted up against Africa, or that birds evolved from dinosaurs, I accept those facts as the testimony of experts.

You have great faith. I personally have great respect for scientists, but unfortunately, because I am a realist, I do not forget the fact that though most scientists may be sincere, there are always those who seek to profit from science, and this is where it gets undesirable for me. Take medical science, for instance: big bucks. Doesn't mean I think all doctors are in it for the money, though some are, but behind the scenes I do believe that the money takes precedence over the individual.

Psych meds: one of Satan's greatest ploys, if you ask me. And as we live longer in a world of additives and preservatives and artificial sweeteners, I think the pharmaceutical business will prosper.

Conspiracy theorist? No not really, all these things are common and general knowledge. Ever listen to the commercials for these drugs? They say at the end things like, "May cause death." Okay...

I have a dislike for this aspect of science just as I have a dislike for most televangelists.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But the point is, reports of the research supporting those findings are available for everyone to see.

You don't think all research findings in science are the "last word," do you? Take the atom, for instance. What if we had stopped looking after discovering this?


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  They’re part of a vast, interconnected edifice called Science, and all our practical experience tells us that science works.

I agree. It is no different with bible interpretation...it is a science. I am not one that despises science, and there are many benefits to research and development. I would love to have a job like that. I would love to look at the endless mysteries, just waiting for someone to come along and understand what they are looking at. Fascinating.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Now I suppose it’s logically possible for scientists to be secretly joined together in a monumental conspiracy, falsifying data, lying, withholding evidence, pulling the wool over the eyes of a gullible public.

Just like with doctors, I believe there are some really good people out there, who do what they do because they believe in what they are doing. Just like law enforcement, rescue, fire, these people do what they do out of sincere motivation. But lets not be naive and say that all is peachy and there is no wrongdoing.

Have there been conspiracies? I think so. The last time I looked at the evolution/creation debate, it was said that some of the "evidence" was contrived. IS that possible? I see no reason to think it is not. Is it fact? I don't know. Does it mean that all who embrace evolution behave this way? No. There are sincere "believers" (in more ways than one) on both sides.

I can only address those I speak to, all else is speculation and requires either "faith" or trust in what we are being told.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But like most conspiracy theories, that’s absurd.

You do not think there are conspiracies?

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  In science, the satisfaction and the glory come from being right—or at least coming up with a better theory than the previous one, a theory that explains more data.


As a bible student, I think I can understand the heart of the scientist.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Except in extremely rare cases that inevitably result in humiliation for the perpetrator when they’re discovered, there’s no ignoring or withholding of data—

I would not go that far. There are people involved besides the scientists themselves, such as the investors. People have agendas, Cufflink, and the world of science is not free from the imposition of agendas by their investors. I know this cannot be said of all, but lets not discount that this type of condition exists.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  unlike those who try to force the round peg of religion into the square hole of science.

Which is why I usually do not involve myself with the evo/creation debate. There is just too much we do not know to be dogmatic about certain things. I believe in a young earth, and nothing presented as evidence has swayed that belief. I will admit, though...I might be wrong.

Does it change my Theological position concerning God and major doctrine? Not even in the slightest.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  So yes, accepting science involves making certain assumptions about the validity of scientific process.

Thanks for your honesty, again. I appreciate that. There are just some things that both of us have to "take on faith."

And that, because the final report has not yet come in, and information is limited at this time.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But to equate those assumptions with religious faith, where you begin with a faith-based conclusion and then look around for facts that could support it, doesn’t wash.

I agree that most "begin with a faith-based conclusion," and then try to justify the position. That is most people. There are convincing presentations for all sides, especially since the introduction of the internet, and the "increase of knowledge."

That is why there are so many denominations in the world. This type of approach will limit man.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I do not believe in miracles, which I take to mean supernatural explanations for observed phenomena.

Sorry to hear that.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I do believe that things sometimes happen for which we have no current explanation.

As do I.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  That just means that science isn’t complete—if it ever will be.

I believe there are some areas science will never do well in. The supernatural is one, because for the most part, the supernatural is viewed as something that cannot be studied by science. I disagree. THough I have my doubts that science will ever have the capability to study spiritual things, I do believe that it could be studied.

I loved the character of Fox Mulder in the X-files. He "wanted to believe." In fact, he did, but he was in opposition to everyone else, who thought he was a nut. Great picture of the science/spiritual dilemma.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Yesterday we didn’t know why a middle-aged man suddenly clutches his chest and keels over; today we know about coronary artery disease.

Agreed. We do read of a man who's "heart became a stone," in scripture.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Today we don’t know why certain advanced cancers suddenly go into remission; tomorrow we may.

I think we will, given enough time. It may just be the matter of inventing the right meter. Or of being able to see better something we do not see now.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But if you say “God did it,” then you open up a stadium-sized can of worms.

Agreed! This works both ways. People blame and give credit to God for some oddball stuff. Blamed for bad stuff, credit for good stuff...He just can't win...lol.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Because if God really does intervene in human affairs by, for example, suddenly curing terminal cancers, why does he play favorites?

He does not. Scripture is clear.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Why did he cure little Billy’s cancer but didn’t do the same for Johnny and Janey and Joey? I know . . . mysterious ways. Wink

Why doesn't He snuff the life out of villians? Sometimes it is merciful when one dies, sometimes when they live. Sometimes one has to experience terrible things in order to see their need for salvation. After all, we all think we are "pretty good," right?

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Whoa! Where did I put you down for writing lengthy posts? Smile Not at all! I’m constantly impressed by the effort people on this forum put into their posts, you very much included.

I am little sensitive about that, sorry for misinterpreting. I think a longer conversation is preferable as it usually discourages the "peanut gallery"...lol. Just kidding...sort of.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Sure I’ve noticed the emotion. And I can see how you might want to interpret it as you have.

Not all of it. Just a few things have been encouraging to me. My intent is just to get people to think. To look at things from a different perspective, rather than what was probably "supplied to them."

The same goes for the "christians" I talk to, by the way, I am in the habit of irritating everyone...lol.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  My own interpretation is different: I think it generally comes from the frustration of feeling you’re talking to a wall—

But that is a fasle charge, usually. This is why I respond point by point, even breaking down the "points" oftentimes. It cannot be said I have not heard them, for in fact I read every statement multiple times that I do not misinterpret the heart of what is being said.

I have not forced my beliefs on anyone here, but have responded to mostly irrelevant discussion, which I am okay with.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  the feeling that no evidence you’ve presented, or could possibly present, can ever get through to the other person.

I do not try to present "evidence." That is not how I see salvation coming about. What I can do is challenge the hatred I have been met with and question the basis of that hatred. If you hate someone based upon the actions of someone else...how reasonable is that?


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  (And I acknowledge you might be feeling the same thing.) That was what prompted my original question to you.

Actually, no, I don't feel I am talking to a wall, nor do I feel I am wasting my time. I benefit from these discussions, as well. It helps me in my attempt to listen better. To talk with people...not at them.

(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I’m afraid both my brain and my heart tell me that no appearance is imminent.

You may be right. I hope not, but, that is just the case sometimes. SCripture teaches that there is a point in which man will lose his ability to hear God. But, I never give up hope.


(29-09-2011 09:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  If I do hear anything, though, you’ll be the first to know. Smile

Take care.

Thanks, Cufflink, this has been an enjoyable post to respond to.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2011, 09:48 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “The question is this: are we examining the similarities and discrepancies together, or just highlighting what best suits our beliefs?

One thing I would point out is that the biblical account speaks not only of rain (i.e. torrential downpours) but of calamitous upheavel from within the earth also, so the two need to be kept in mind. And I doubt that anyone would deny the ability of either to cause destruction.”

The issue I have here is that the claim of “upheavel (sic) from within the Earth” is an unsubstantiated claim. There are no great masses of water underneath the surface of the Earth to account for this biblical claim

Hello again, BeardedDude, hope you are not getting tired of the conversation. I can understand how discussing with someone as ignorant as I am about the "deeper things" concerning your profession could get tiresome, similar to speaking with a young child, and always being asked "Why?" lol

But I hope you will have patience. When it come to an area where I am woefully ignorant, I will at least try to research the subject in order not to frustrate you.

Concerning the above statement, I would reiterate that the "water below the firmament" was, I believe, a combination of standing bodies of water as well as resevoirs that were at the time underground. Coupled with this was, I believe, the act of God in "breaking them up," so that the waters that were currently underground were then brought up, contributing to the amount of water necessary to submerge the land masses at that time.

As far as the "biblical claim," there is no biblical claim that there are currently "great masses of water" underneath the surface.

Part of the recession was by evaporation:



Genesis 8
1And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;



Do you think that men in Moses' time were familiar with evaporation? From observation, I would probably say yes. They probably knew that if water (which was probably a precious commodity) was left out, it would dry up. But here we see that the Lord "made a wind" and that this in part accounts for the drying of the land. I know the water within the atmosphere is minimal, at least I think so, in what I have looked at in recent days (though I admit this has not been looked at in great detail), so understand I am not trying to say this was a major contributor, merely one aspect.


2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;


Here we see that the "fountains of the deep were stopped" as well as the rain stopped. In looking at this in the course of the discussion we have been having, what comes to mind is this: not all of the water that came from within the earth (underground)...was used. This could be looked at as why there is still water underground.

Again I would mention the cavern systems of the world that indicate waterways that now have no water. It seems reasonable to me to look at at least some of these as the resevoirs opened up that an underground water source might come upon the earth. I would also speculate the force that could possibly cause elevation in an area, or make more pronounced the elevation during this process.

Bury a water hose under a pile of dirt, and turn it on. If conditions were right, and the pressure of the water was relieved, not just in one place, but through different weaknesses in the dirt, could we expect for the dirt to become more elevated?

Again, this is just uneducated speculation on my part, but, the power of God to direct events (and the biblical claim is that He did) set to the side for the sake of looking at this from a scientific viewpoint only, would you say this is a plausible theory?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “And how would this factor in concerning the discussion at hand? Would it not show that sea level is not necessarily constant? I would think that both events would be related to isostasy. Imagine, just for a moment, an incredible volume of water which previously had not been upon the earth (and this is what scripture teaches, that the waters above the firmament and the waters below the firmament were separated) now suddenly upon the earth. It would be a reasonable assumption that this in itself could account for terrestial elevation, particularly if the "foundation" of the earth was in a state of upheavel (water presses down in one place resulting in land pushing up in another).”

Water pressing down in one area is not heavy enough to cause a significant decrease in elevation because of its density.

But, as we have discussed, water pressure combined with force is certainly enough to decrease land mass, as well as increase it in another place. Even in local flooding we see this principle, where debris piles accumulate in one place having been displaced from another.

Keep in mind that while I know you discount the possibility of a global flood, if it did happen, we would be looking at displacement on the grandest scale, rather than that which naturally occurs over time.


(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And isostasy would not cause a corresponding increase in another area. Isostatic changes in elevation are similar to an ice cube floating in water. The majority of the ice cube resides below the surface but a small portion is elevated above the surface. The bigger the piece of ice (icebergs) the larger the portion that sticks out. This analogy works well because rock is less dense than the mantle that it sits upon, just like the ice is less dense than the water. Sea level is not constant but maximum sea level would be attained today by melting all of the ice on Earth, and even this would only cause a rise of a few meters, enough to worry Florida but not the majority of the World. Relative sea level changes can be the result of sea level changes and isostasy.

While researching isostatic change (and thanks for bringing this up...fascinating stuff!), I read something that was very interesting. Bear with me, because this is a combination of ignorance, theory, with just a wee bit of science mixed in (lol): as I have said, I am one that believes that before the flood, there was a canopy that surrounded the earth, and I think that theory suits a "perfect" creation. Earth temperature was regulated globally, causing mild temperatures, rather than the extremes we now see.

The important thing to keep in mind when considering this is this: there were no glaciers or polar caps. Now, when this canopy was broken up, how long would it have taken, combined with the possibility of escaping gases (which could account for instantaneous freezing), for the formation of glacial accumulation? Not only that (and I know this may sound absurd), but the increased wieght of the glacial accumulation would, in theory, have the capability of pushing down the land it accumulated on, resulting in an increase of sea level.

The question would be, could this have taken place within a year's time? I myself would say yes. Again, while we are used to seeing things of this nature occur over extended periods of time, as a believer, I have no problem believing that the God Who created the world in the first place would be able to cause these events to occur in a relatively short time.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “As I mentioned in the previous post, scripture teaches that the entire world, when created, was at one time under water. While some of my brethren see a calamitous event prior to the flood as an explanation for this, it is something I would neither affirm or deny, since I do not see a basis for it in scripture, and am not inclined to lean in that direction.

Where is the scientific data to deny that the world was, when first formed, not completely submerged, land appearing afterwards? “

Continental crust has probably been accumulating through time, but land has likely existed for most of Earth’s history.

Then it would be safe to say that science cannot either affirm or deny this?

But, I do not think this to be a critical point.

By the way, I am still curious as to your personal opinion about whether the continents were at one point joined.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once again, we have sedimentary rocks and these require sediments from erosional processes, and this requires exposure.

Okay, one thing I would ask: if in fact the world is billions of years old, how is it that we think we might be able to pinpoint the events of one year...within that time?

Seems to be to be the proverbial "needle in the haystack."


(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And as for your last question, Where is the scientific data to deny that the world, when it first solidified, was completely submerged?

We have rocks from very early in Earth’s history but not from its earliest history. These rocks have likely been long gone and recycled back into the environment.

I read recently that because of this, science actually uses material that is extraterrestial in order to speculate the age of terrestial material, due to decomposition. This I read on a non-creationist site which was not involved with the debate.

As with the discussion about fossil material from the sea, where, if I read you correctly (and correct me if I am wrong), you said that we could tell about certain material, such as the material found in fecal matter (which would show that there had been an event of large-scale death and a "feeding frenzy" of marine life), how is it this same testing cannot determine "old rock?"

It is my understanding that substance does not dissipate, but that it is redistributed, such as material burned in a fire, though it has changed state in appearance, it is still "all there."

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Yet do these preclude a worldwide flood?

How can it be certain that these were localized, except the evidence is on such a small scale as to be confirmed as a localized event?

To illustrate what I mean, imagine a large fire sweeping over the countryside. Within it's path are homes, some of them consumed by the fire itself, some set ablaze by the heat of the fire, though the fire does not actually reach it, say, the edges of the fire. Within the flood and during it's recession would have been topological events that may have been directly tied to the event itself, while there is also the possibility of events that may have occurred months, years, decades even, after. A possible scenario would be the accumulation of debris (silt, for example) which may have "stopped the mouths" of valleys, creating large lakes or even small seas. Yet, like many a dam that man has built, eventually failed, due to a lack of integrity which would have permanently kept this large body of water contained.

This is given just for the sake of picturing scenarios which may replicate something which seems to have a particular source due to the effects it has wrought.”

These events do negate the possibility of global flooding events. When examining other stratigraphic records of a similar age in other geographic locations we find evidence for terrestrial environments and/or shallow water. There is no point in the Stratigraphic record containing fossils that indicates complete submersion of all land at the same time.

I did come across a site that said that there were sites that contained both terrestial fossils as well as marine. Understand, this is why I don't often get into this discussion, because at this point we could play "evidence-pong" and still have to make a determination as to who's findings are the correct ones, and who is telling the truth, and who is providing false evidence. I believe the potential for dishonesty is on both sides, whether intentional, misread evidence, inconclusive finding being aggrandized, et cetera.

What I can say is this: that no evidence for a global flood ever be found, that does not detract from my belief that the written record of scripture gives an account of an event which is far less spectacular than creation itself, and I do not need evidences from either side to believe in a global flood. I am to take on faith that the very word that I am trusting my eternal well-being to is true, and having trusted that word, I am to have an understanding that increases concerning God's will for my life.

It might interest you (or maybe not) that I believe that scripture is given in such a way that man can, if he so chooses, eisegete the text that he can create doctrine as he sees fit. I also believe that the global record is the same. If God were interested in "proving to man" with empirical evidence that He is God, we would have long ago discovered the Ark, or something of that nature, that some would have the "proof" they require before placing their trust in Him and His word.

But that is just my opinion.


(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “I can believe this. Which is why I can believe that perhaps large mountains may have been formed as a result of the flood.”

The physics alone behind the processes alone needed to build mountains negates the argument of them being the result of water.

But I was not trying to say that water created the mountains, Sorry if I gave that impression. What I was saying is that the event would have included foundational upheaval as the fountains of the deep were broken up, as well as the methods of recession, which (and this is just my opinion) were used when the water was again given boundaries, which would include the rising up of mountains and land.

Don't worry, even some of my brethren would probably think me an idiot for my personal belief about this...lol.


(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The Himalayas are still increasing in elevation. They are the result of the India Plate (the lithospheric plate with India on it) ramming into the Eurasian plate. Like a gigantic sized car crash where the two cars crumple into one another.

Understood. Now imagine this process occuring in a years time, and how such a theory would play into the evidential record that would be left.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “As to the former, I was referring to marine life (fossil findings) as being deposited before the flood (and I hope I am remembering the context of the conversation), which would be a possible explanation as to why there are no terrestial fossils found with them, as they would have been deposited and covered (possibly) before the flood took place, then, when the catastrophic events that took place happened, again covered by the events themselves.”

This would seemingly weaken the evidence for a global flood, since these lower units that contain no terrestrial fossils are often some of the most extensive marine deposits.

Not sure why that would weaken the evidence. What I mean is that before the flood there would have been marine life living and dying and being deposited upon the ocean floors. It would just be natural that these fossils would be underneath what may have been deposited over them.




(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This would also mean that there is some layer within the stratigraphic package that would identifiable as the point where the flood began, and as I stated in one of previous responses, there is no evidence of complete global submergence.

Again, finding evidence of a one-year event within even six thousand years, much less billions of years would be phenomenal. I know there are creationists who believe they have, and I look at this as something that I would at this time neither affirm or deny. It is like the doctrinal differences between denominations: they have the same material, which results in doctrinal difference. Now, concerning doctrine, primary doctrine that is, there is a side (I believe) that is right, and a side that is wrong. By proper interpretational methods, which is a very scientific process involving many steps, we can read the material and interpret what is there, rather than what happens most often, which is conforming scripture to a pre-existing belief.

The same thing applies, I believe, to this issue. I cannot help but to believe that most involved are sincere, genuinely trying to interpret the evidence in an unbiased manner, but, the question is, are they extracting from the evidence what is there and relaying that, or, have they let their particular beliefs sway their conclusions and become guilty of what many preachers are guilty of today?

Now you, BeardedDude, can answer for yourself. In the little bit of discussion we have had, I am persuaded that you are a genuine scientist, sincere in your work and belief. However, can you tell me that your beliefs began before or after you actually began engaging in the science itself? I am not trying to offend you, just asking for an honest answer to this question.

With many that are "expositors" of the word today, we could probably look through their history and determine that at least some of their belief is due to their upbringing. It is only natural that a fundamental would attend a fundamental college or seminary. Same thing for a charismatic. See what I mean?

So if the belief is in place, the education received catered to that belief (and I think you might admit that many schools would be evolutionary in nature), is it unusal that the a person might be inclined to lean a particular way. The same principle applies to those who "teach" biblical doctrine.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “What I would ask about this is, does science show that the fossil record preceded, or followed, this ocean? And, where so you stand concerning this?”

The evidence shows terrestrial environments before the interior Cretaceous seaway, then it shows a thriving marine community that lasted for millions of years before a new terrestrial fauna replaced it.

This could be accounted for as land mass that was overcome by the flood. The amount of time is seemingly a "magic bullet," but have you considered even briefly that perhaps the amount of time necessary to bring about certain circumstances could have been excelerated?

Also, this is apparently a single point on the map, at least, from what I have seen. Can we make blanket statements about the entire earth from this one location?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Is it not equally possible that during the creation of this "seaway," that the sediments would have been washed away?

As far as the terrestial deposits, two things come to mind (and keep in mind, this is just uneducated speculation on my part): 1) the formation of of fossils, or, I should say the conditions which would have preserved the subject, could be attributed to as of yet unknown circumstances, such as I suggested concerning the effects of gases under catastrophic conditions; 2) the insistence that conditions remain constant is not a very good argument, meaning, just because there is a catastrophe that an entire area is submitted to, does not mean that there would not be a focal point (such as the center of an earthquake) as well as fringe effects. “

These are not high energy environments, so completely washing away any sediments would not occur.

What are not high energy movements? Can science say that an event such as the flood did not happen because they have found no evidence? If the flood did happen, it would have involved very much high energy movements, as well, in the recession of the water, both fast and slow moving water courses.

Would you say it is not possible at all that the high energy movements could have erased its own passage, leaving the low energy data somewhat intact?

I know this is speculation, but I would think that science would look at all possible scenarios, rather than taking from the realm of possibilities things that could possibly have happened, though there be, at this time, no concrete evidence to show that it did happen. Isn't that what makes science great?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Some may (and most likely were) removed, but not all of them. The stratigraphic record is never complete.

I don't know if you recognize the significance of this statement. I am in full agreement with this.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  There is always time missing.

Also agreed. What I question is this: if the earth is billions of years old, it seems a bit presumptuous for anyone to say they have pinpointed that particular time in the incredibly long record of history.

I am not saying that this cannot be done, for anything is possible, I am just saying that perhaps a little humility on the part of both sides might be a good idea.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Sometimes the amount of time is minimal (<1,000 years or so) and other times there may be millions of years missing.


lol...I would (good-humoredly) agree.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don’t understand how gases can result in terrestrial fossils.

Would you discount it as a possibility because you "don't understand?" I know you wouldn't, at least, I would guess that.

Okay, a scenario: silt covers our subject as the flood waters prevail. when land mass is affected by tectonic movement resulting in a breaking up the earth below it, rupturing gas pockets and creating channels in which the evaporative process takes place in close proximity to the subect(s), freezing condition help to preserve the subject until time itself steps in.

In areas such as the poles, the subject may be preserved differently than in areas where drier conditions may prevail. The possibility of low temperatures due to evaporation (which could theoretically account for part of the torrential rain itself as certain gases evorate and then condense in the atmoshere) across the globe are a distinct possibilty, I would think, however, the "aftermath" would, due to the locale, probably result in different outcomes.

I know, sounds silly, but, in this world there are still things we do not understand. It seems to me that when approaching a subject such as this, the need to look at all possibilities would be critical, that we not overlook a possible answer to the mysteries we seek to understand.


(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And the inner Cretaceous seaway was not a “catastrophic event.”

I am sure you say this based upon what has been found and analyzed, but I would suggest again that because the evidence that has remained indicates certain conditions, that does not preclude an event that would have surely obliterated evidence of itself.

In the Outer Banks, we would be hard pressed to "prove" hurricane Isabel. Were it not for a documented record, scientists probably would not be able to study the area and say, "This was a result of Isabel."

That there had been storms, sure. But this particular storm, I doubt that very much. Also, would they be able to correctly identify each storm, tell the magnitude of the storm...without missing one?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The amount of time that it would have taken for the seaway to form is certainly 100’s if not 1,000’s or a few million years.

And there is the possibility of "missing time," again. Was it hundreds, thousands, or millions?

If the estimate can be off that much, I would like to offer my own suggestion: perhaps about a year...lol.

But it still shows that there were areas of the earth that were once dry, then sea, then dry again. The timeline is in question, but even as you might be certain of an extended time, I also can retain the possibility of a short time (in the land being submerged, that is. The amount of time necessary for the land to return to its former condition could have been a thousand years, thus providing the evidence of a low energy process.

Where did the water go? Perhaps part to the atmoshere, part to the collection of ice at the poles, part to the increase of land mass?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  More than enough time for organisms to migrate away at a safe slow speed to new habitat.

Then we would have evidence of these lucky subjects? If all got away, due to normal conditions, why do we have fossils at all?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Interesting, isn't it, that there are fossils in the ocean? I can very easily imagine that there is a distinct possibility that much that was affected by the raging waters of the flood may have been washed out to sea. “

Keep in mind that these fossils are largely marine, and the plant spores are the result of wind-blown sediments that were dumped into the water and then collected at the bottom of the ocean. The sahara in Africa is a HUGE source of particulate matter that is found in these cores (especially the ones off of the coast of Africa) and within these air-blown sediments we get plant spores and lipids.

This I can see. As an uninformed person, I would guess that mixed into the Saharan material we would find the results of breakdown, such as rock, remains, fecal matter...et cetera. What would we expect to see as a result if say, a tsunami swept across this area and washed everything to the deepest part of the sea. Because it is already broken down, we could expect that it would easily be carried by the energy in motion, perhaps erasing all evidence of its existence.

Does that mean that this desert region is done for, gone? I would expect that the same conditions that brought this region into existence would then reoccur, reforming over time the same area, this time, replaced with material from wherever it is that the original came from. Perhaps this material may be different, because the conditions surrounding the wind blown particles have also changed, meaning perhaps animal life has changed from the source area.

Okay, just a thought.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  One of your arguments centered around the consumption of the dead organisms. This too is something that would be evident geochemically. Consumption would result in the production of fecal matter, and the plants themselves would have all been buried at the same time. If this were the case we could use the Carbon isotope signature to determine the relative amount of carbon (dead stuff) being buried. If there was a massive amount of fecal matter and plant material being buried in one sudden event we would see a negative shift in the δ13C record within the rocks (particularly carbonates being formed in the presumably undisturbed limestones). I use these types of isotopes in my research and I have become familiar with these types of occurrences, and there is not one that in a stratigraphic interval of any magnitude that would correspond with such an event.

Bear with me, BeardedDude: if we have to theorize about our terrestial rocks using extraterrestial rocks, how can we be certain that fecal matter would have an extended life that we could also accurately guage its age, much less it's presence.

Also, this would have to, I would guess, have an extremely concentrated density in order to be studied. Would we think that their would be conditions in place to preserve such samples?

This leads me to ask again, are the conditions present today for the formation of fossils, if so, what are those specific conditions, and how long would it take for them to actually become fossils?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Now it is my turn to not understand: so we do find the same "small marine life" in both upper and lower levels?

These small marine invertebrates are found in upper levels which are not found in the lower? I am not sure what point this makes, if you could clarify, please.”

We do not find the same marine fossils in the lower portions that we find in the upper sections.


Are the ones found in the upper levels thought to be more advanced, so to speak, meaning, they can be seen to be distinguished by the differences the evolutionary process would have caused from one group to another?

And, are these solely in areas where we believe there were at one time shallow seas?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We also do not find terrestrial fossils buried along-side marine fossils in the upper units.

Well, that would make sense to me, considering that in normal conditions they do not live in the same place. Except perhaps along the shores of the seas.

Which brings a question to mind: in the fossil record, do we find aquatic and marine fossils side by side, as we might expect to find turtles and rabbits dying in close proximity to each other?

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Terrestrial fossils may be above and below marine fossils but not with marine fossils.

Again, that would make sense, though I see your point: if there were a flood, we should expect to see both together. Good point. Of course I would have to at this point try to "explain away" why this is so, so here it goes: the terrestial fossils are the result of life before and after the flood, the intervening marine fossils a result of the flood. That would suggest to me an event that separated these fossils.

However, in my mind i picture the flood as such a catastrophic event, I am inclined to think that, as is the case with most floods, everything that is moved by the waters usually ends up in the same place. Which, in this case, would be the depths of the ocean. I do not think the jury should render a verdict nor take a dogmatic posiiton until the ocean beds can be researched properly and thoroughly. As I said before, I anticipate a day when man will be able to do this, and I would be greatly interested to see what the findings will be. This really fascinates me, though I do not think I would want to be the one that went down to such extraordinary depths.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  “Certain insect species may have inhabited a host corpse and survived thus. But, if a species had a limited number of survivors, this may have contributed to their extinction.”


Limited numbers leading to extinction? Like having only two of every organism left on Earth on a single boat?

LOL! That was great! I laughed several times when I read this, thanks. Glad to know you have a sense of humor.

Of course I believe that what God sets out to do, He acheives: this includes repopulating the earth, even as He populated the earth the first time...with one couple.

But...that was hilarious!

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This would have been the greatest extinction event on Earth because the limited numbers of animals from Noah’s boat would have surely resulted in the extinction of nearly everything.

Makes it that much more amazing, doesn't it?

But we see in the efforts of man himself the possibilities of strengthening the numbers of a species, and repopulating areas with animals that faced extinction. Every now and then I hear of a species being taken off the endangered list. And that is just the efforts of man. Sometimes, though, his efforts are not successful.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Dragonflies again
I am no dragonfly expert but they are fairly closely related. They are not the same species but they are still in the same groupings as modern dragonflies. They would have lived in similar environments.

Sorry, I will stop asking about them.

I read earlier about a bird with a thirty foot wingspan...that would be an awesome sight. Of course, anything that is different from what we are accustomed to would be awesome. I read of a giant crocodile found in the Philipines. How is it that this creature lived so long with man being completely unaware of him? Apparently he strayed from his usual eating pattern which brought him to the attention of men.

I am one that believes there are creatures upon the earth that man is unaware of, and no, I am not talking about big foot, though I do think the possibility of surviving dinosaurs (such as Nessie) is just that, a very real possibility.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Radiometric Dating
We could do an entire thread on this, but suffice it say that there is no evidence that suggests that our estimates of radioactive decay is wrong by any measure great enough to shift our age estimates very far from a 4.567 billion year old Earth to a young Earth of only a few thousand years.

I use a meter that will measure electricity in multiple variances. While I do not put a lot of stock in radio-metric dating, I do not entirely dismiss it, as I said, I am a young earther who admits the possibility that I may be wrong. The earth may be millions of years old, though I believe it to be not quite six thousand. I know how absurd this seems to some, but, it is what it is.

The dating process may have a similar aspect as my electrical meter, it may be that while it is functional, it may be on the wrong setting...lol. It could be the difference between measuring amps as opposed to volts.

This is just my opinion, hope that doesn't offend.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The laws of physics and nature do not change and radiometric decay is not only constant but so is entropy.

Now entropy is something I think I understand. It is something that I would think would have to be a huge factor to the scientific research concerning fossils and earth history.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If rates of decay were accelerated at the creation of Earth or at the time of the flood, the heat generated would have been enough to melt the Earth!

Would, if the massively larger population we have today saw an incredible death event, this really affect the earth as you suggest here? I have to question that. We did not see the shores of the Philipines melt when such a large portion of their population died.

Besides, your forgetting that the earth was kind of wet at the time...lol.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I appreciate the replies but I also feel we are chasing our tails.

Sorry to hear that. You have challenged me to use some little grey cells that normally I do not use...lol. It is a fascinating conversation, and I am always glad to learn new things. I do try to minimize the information my little brain can hold, retaining only that which I feel relevant, but, this has been a lot of fun.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am unsure of whether or not you are considering the possibility of my responses to be correct at all.

I thought I have been clear: concerning the age of the earth and the fossil record, I have admitted that my views may be incorrect.

Concerning whether there is a God in Heaven and whether there was a global flood, you don't really think I will forsake my belief in Him or the flood based upon what I have been presented with, do you?

There are aspects of your area of expertise that I will gladly acknowledge as true...I do not scoff at your work, and in fact find it fascinating. I have always held a deep respect for those who are in fields such as these.

(29-09-2011 07:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have tried thinking of ways to test for a flood or a young Earth (I have a thread on it called ‘The Stratigraphic Record and the Fossil Record.’ I have tried to devise ways to test for a global flood and a young Earth but the hypotheses do not hold up to the test and the evidence.
Cheers

I can accept that, it is your belief. We each have to make conclusions based upon our experiences in life and available data. I wish you well in your work, and hope that we might have further conversation in the future, as I have enjoyed it, it has been a bit of a departure from the norm, and a welcome change in subject matter.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2011, 04:15 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
Hello again, S.T.—

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response to my last post. I don’t have the time right now to reply in kind, so let me just address a couple of things that came up:

On the Bible: Unlike some of my fellow atheists, I don’t believe the Bible should be relegated to the trash bin. In fact, I don’t believe people can consider themselves educated if they don’t have a decent grasp of it. For better or worse, the Bible is a foundation document of western civilization and has had a huge influence on our language and culture. It should be read—along with the Iliad, the Odyssey, Plato, Dante, Shakespeare and the other classics that have helped shape our world.

I can’t tell you I’ve read every single word of the Bible, but I have read a lot. As a result of my early education, I’m fairly proficient in Hebrew (not expert-level; maybe advanced intermediate) and have even had a university course in Biblical Aramaic. I can quote you extended excerpts of the OT by heart in the original languages. (Maybe someday I’ll learn some Greek as well.) I say this not to toot my own horn but because I want you to understand that many atheists are acquainted with the Bible. I’ve encountered people on this board who could teach courses in it! (Secular courses, of course . . . Wink ) Theists sometimes seem to feel that if only we knew God’s Word, we would be “see the light.” It ain’t necessarily so.

As a counterpoint to Luther’s claim about familiarity with scripture resulting in more Christians, there’s the story about Randolph Churchill, Winston’s son. He had never opened the Bible, but to win a bet he read the entire thing in two weeks. The famous quote that came out of the exercise was, “God, isn’t God a shit!”

Some parts of the Bible I respect and admire: the Song of Songs; certain psalms (like the amazing 44th, where the author dares to take God to task for his inaction: “Why are you sleeping?”); much of Ecclesiastes; above all the Book of Job, the most misunderstood and badly read book of the Bible; Jesus’ “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”; Paul’s statement that becoming an adult means putting away childish things . . . Some other parts of the Bible are simply worth reading for the great storytelling. (The narrative in 2 Samuel involving David, Bathsheba, Uriah, Joab, and Nathan, for example, is riveting.)

But so much of the Bible is either nonsensical, or evil, or both. The damage this book has done is incalculable. I don’t even know where to start. How many slave owners justified themselves through the Bible’s acceptance of slavery? How many people were burned alive because of three Hebrew words that mean, “You shall not allow a witch to live”? How many kids have been terrified by stories of roasting in hell if they don’t accept Jesus? How many gay people have been driven to self-loathing and suicide because of Leviticus being waved in their faces? I could go on and on . . .

By all means, I say, read the Bible. But understand that it’s not the “Word of God”—unless God is a monster. It’s a human document, written by ancient, pre-scientific people, some of whom rose above their time and some of whom didn’t. The best “Guide to the Bible” I can think of is: Take the best and leave the rest.

On salvation: What exactly am I supposed to be saved from? If it’s hell, well . . . heaven and hell (that nasty innovation of the New Testament) are mythology—they don’t exist. Am I being saved from death itself? I don’t believe in life after death: although the atoms and molecules of my body will go on, there’s no valid reason to think I’m going to survive my death with any preservation of my identity. Am I being saved from a life without God? I don’t believe a benevolent God exists—in fact, I can make a lot more sense out of life knowing there’s no such being. (If God existed, he’d have a shitload of splainin’ to do. But the unanswerable question about why bad things happen to good people goes away if good and bad happen at random.) More importantly, I don’t need the notion of God to appreciate the wonder of being alive in an incredible universe and to feel a sense of self-worth. So the Christian notion of salvation is something I don’t relate to and that frankly creeps me out. The religious people I respect the most are the ones who don’t try to “save” non-believers but rather take the inspiration they get from their beliefs and use it to do genuine good in the world—to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, plead for the widow and the orphan, protect the planet.


Anyway, I enjoy talking to intelligent, articulate, reasonable people about important things, regardless of whether I agree with them. So I’ve enjoyed our conversation, and I hope you have too. I also appreciated what you said about the value of listening. What I hope is that the listening you talked about isn’t just for the purpose of understanding the atheist/agnostic position so you can witness to us more effectively. Smile

Be well.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
01-10-2011, 06:41 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Hello again, S.T.—

Hello Cufflink, thanks for the response, again, another post I look forward to working through, as some very interesting statements are made.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response to my last post. I don’t have the time right now to reply in kind, so let me just address a couple of things that came up:

I believe we may be related somewhere back down the chain. If this is a short response...lol.

But, I actually appreciate the longer ones, as I said, it usually makes for uninterrupted conversation, as most will not take the time to read longer posts.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  On the Bible: Unlike some of my fellow atheists, I don’t believe the Bible should be relegated to the trash bin. In fact, I don’t believe people can consider themselves educated if they don’t have a decent grasp of it.

Yes, I have read this very thing said. It was one of the first things I was told when I first came here.

However (and you probably guessed that was coming)...

First, most who believe that scripture is the inspired word of God, rather than a "great literary work," also believe that the commands within this book should be followed. Granted, it must be approached as any book would be, literally, first, then, by gaining understanding of what is actually written, applying the teaching in scripture to our lives, which, ultimately, is one of the primary reasons we believe God gave us His word to begin with.

What happens, though, is that one will either embrace that this is the word of God, and will seek to understand and apply what it teaches in their daily conversation, or...they will reject it. Though one might find "good things to say," or certain things they like about the bible, scripture itself does not allow for man to decide for himself Who God is, and how God should act, but rather, declares Who God is, and how man is to act.

Secondly, I do not know that I would agree that one can be uneducated if they have not "a decent grasp" of the bible. We could find example after example of men and women who had no knowledge of scripture, and yet were very educated people.

For me, the bottom line is this: there are two people that are going to approach the scriptures, according to scripture itself, 1) those who are natural, 2) those who are spiritual. I know this may be a little offensive, but that is just what the scriptures teach.

As far as "rounding off an education" with a decent grasp of scripture, my personal belief is that "a little knowledge" is far worse than ignorance, for two reasons: 1) I do believe that scripture teaches varying degrees of punishment for those who reject God, and particularly in this Age, the Gospel; 2) having a little knowledge about some things can be seen to be dangerous and less desired than ignorance.

You know the old saying, "He knows just enough to be dangerous?" There is a reason such a saying came into being, because it illustrates a principle that is true.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  For better or worse, the Bible is a foundation document of western civilization and has had a huge influence on our language and culture.

And on this I would agree, but would not seclude it to the West. Nearly every civilization shows parallels of similar thought when it comes to certain basic beliefs. Most believe in God or gods. Most believe in simple principles such as it is wrong to kill, steal, et cetera.

In many cultures there is a version of a mother/son deity belief, which comes straight out of Genesis, which I believe to be corrupted knowledge that has been passed down from the Garden.

Now if we seclude "Western Culture" to Christianity, sorry, but I would still have to disagree. Many look at America as a "Christian nation," I very seriously question that. While I can read historical literature and see theological positions of founding fathers, there are definitely some I would not want to be associated with. I will stop there, as I can finish this better in the following quotes.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  It should be read—along with the Iliad, the Odyssey, Plato, Dante, Shakespeare and the other classics that have helped shape our world.

And see, as an avid reader, I might be inclined to give the reverse perspective, saying it might be a good idea for bible students to read these. However, One fundamental difference between seeing scripture as inspired, God-breathed books and viewing it as literature is this: I am not going to take the principles found in these other books and try to pattern my life after them.



(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I can’t tell you I’ve read every single word of the Bible, but I have read a lot.

Personally I feel that a straightforward Genesis to Revelation study of scripture is possibly the worst way to begin. Before I told a student to read Leviticus, I would suggest the Book of Hebrews. Before reading Daniel...Revelation.

The topical approach is an easier way to break into scripture, because lets face it, Leviticus is going to be a stopping point for most people. To continue reading, one must almost force themselves to continue. This was true for me as well. But, once I studied Hebrews, it opened Leviticus up to me, and it is actually a fascinating book to me now, and it has become, not a dreary book of statutes and ordinances, but a treasured resource able to give me insight to the entirety of scripture.

This book would also have had more relevance to the Judaizer, for this book outlines Judaistic practice and belief.

But for the new student...yawwwwn...lol.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  As a result of my early education, I’m fairly proficient in Hebrew (not expert-level; maybe advanced intermediate) and have even had a university course in Biblical Aramaic. I can quote you extended excerpts of the OT by heart in the original languages.

That is awesome, really. If you don't mind me asking, do you have an Hebrew heritage? Or associated with Judaism? Or perhaps lived in foreign lands? I would be curious to know what brought about such education.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  (Maybe someday I’ll learn some Greek as well.)

Go for it. A worthy endeavor, I would think.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I say this not to toot my own horn but because I want you to understand that many atheists are acquainted with the Bible.

You see, that is one thing that drew me to this forum. The boast, "We know the bible better than You do!" was a magnet to me. How intriguing, I thought, people who "know" the bible and yet...have turned their backs on God to the point where they unashamedly mock God.

I have been very disappointed. I have yet to speak to one person that "knows" scripture. Not even from an educated perspective.

And understand, I do not say this to "toot my own horn" either, nor to offend. One of the things that was first made clear was that context is not a necessary aspect of interpretation. What if we took that approach to literature? What if we took that approach to the Constitution?

It boggles the mind.

Most of the "debunking" I have seen are out of context misinterpretations, which in most cases show total disregard for even historical or cultural context. I will give an example in some of the following quotes.


(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I’ve encountered people on this board who could teach courses in it!

Where are they?

Understand, I do believe that it is possible for one to gain "a decent grasp" on scripture and then choose not to follow Christ in obedience to the gospel. I would greatly desire to speak to people like that. People are not saved due to their knowledge, but they are saved through faith, which has its genesis in the word of God. The gospel can be preached, but it is not the preacher that saves. The gospel can be taught, but it is not the teacher that saves.

Only when the gospel is preached or taught coupled with divine intervention, meaning, as Christ taught, the Holy Spirit (the Comforter Jesus promised to send after His ascension) must also move the heart of the one who hears (or reads) the gospel to belief and repentance. Just because one reads the scripture does not mean he will automatically repent. I am not a Calvinist, but I do affirm that salvation cannot be accomplished except that God works in a persons heart. Hebrews teaches that the Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those who will reject that work God seeks to do.

But, as I said, I would greatly desire to speak to those who "could teach courses on the bible."


(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  (Secular courses, of course . . . Wink )

And this is a problem, even in colleges and seminaries that are supposed to be "Christian." When the bible is taught by a natural man, the result is usually a fail. Even when scripture is taught by those who in truth born again, but either not mature enough or knowledgable enough tobe in such a place of authority, results can be disastrous.

Many have sat under good and sound teaching and preaching for years, yet still have not embraced Christ. I am not trying to sound arrogant, this is just what scripture teaches.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Theists sometimes seem to feel that if only we knew God’s Word, we would be “see the light.” It ain’t necessarily so.

Agreed. However, this is true: apart from the word of God, no man will "see the light." In other words, no man has, or ever will be saved apart from the word of God.



(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  As a counterpoint to Luther’s claim about familiarity with scripture resulting in more Christians, there’s the story about Randolph Churchill, Winston’s son. He had never opened the Bible, but to win a bet he read the entire thing in two weeks. The famous quote that came out of the exercise was, “God, isn’t God a ****!”

And you yourself express the same sentiment (though in far less graphic terms, and sorry, I did edit the curse).

It is funny: one of the things that has been stated repeatedly here is that God is a terrible God. Many of the statements are made accompanied by verses that do not even pertain to God, yet He is held accountable for the actions of the men in the verses.

I feel sorry for R. Churchill, really I do. But look at why he read the bible. Do you really feel that this young man was predisposed to see God as Someone Who is far beyond man. That is one mistake man makes concerning God: because scripture is given in terms that man can understand, many feel that God is nothing more...than a man.



(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Some parts of the Bible I respect and admire: the Song of Songs; certain psalms (like the amazing 44th, where the author dares to take God to task for his inaction: “Why are you sleeping?”);


While I enjoy the Psalms tremendously (though I admit it is not a favorite), I actually do not care much for Song of Solomon.

In scripture, there are times when the honesty of the writer might seem amazing. Jonah amazes me: imagine being such an insolent man before God.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  much of Ecclesiastes;

Again, a book that I do not care for too much. This may seem strange, but I do not embrace nor advocate the feelings of this writer. For him...all was vanity. Imagine having to deal with multiple wives on such a scale...no wonder he was so down!

I look at this as a book that illustrates repentance. See 12:1 & 14.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  above all the Book of Job, the most misunderstood and badly read book of the Bible;

I would love to hear your thoughts as to why it is misunderstood. As well as what "badly read" means.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Jesus’ “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”; Paul’s statement that becoming an adult means putting away childish things . . . Some other parts of the Bible are simply worth reading for the great storytelling. (The narrative in 2 Samuel involving David, Bathsheba, Uriah, Joab, and Nathan, for example, is riveting.)

First, do you accept them as valid historical accounts? I am sure you may decline Nathan's speaking for God, but how about the events (mundane) listed?

And secondly, since you have a "decent grasp" on scripture, can I suggest that cherry-picking and determining what scripture is acceptable as well as deciding for yourself as to how scripture is to be applied in your life...seems a little bit like the Pharisees' method? Which scripture shows to be undesirable?

For the Jew, the story of David would have held far more significance than just good reading. The heart of the Jew should have been horrified by David's actions, as anyone should be. But one underlying teaching to be found in David's life is that through it all, God did not forsake him. David, on his death bed, was at peace with God, though he had committed murder and adultery. Why is that? What would the Jew of David's day thought about what he did. It probably would have been no different than how we might react today.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But so much of the Bible is either nonsensical, or evil, or both.

Be glad to discuss those parts with you.


(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  The damage this book has done is incalculable.

Actually, the damage that people who not only have not had a decent grasp on scripture, but have committed a far worse sin, taking the name of God in vain...is incalculable.

There is not one event that can be blamed on sound adherents to scriptural teaching.

But, I would be glad to discuss this with you as well.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I don’t even know where to start. How many slave owners justified themselves through the Bible’s acceptance of slavery?

Okay, fair enough. And how many of them freed their slaves every seventh year?

How is the custom of the ancient Jew relevant? How exactly did slavery work in Hebrew culture? Was it the same kind of slavery as that Joseph was sold into? Was it like unto the slavery of early America?

Just because someone used scripture to justify slavery...don't blame scripture for that. Even in New Testament times, there were those who were slaves. But what, according to Christian doctrine, is said about slavery?

And...what has that to do with salvation? What does that have to do with the New Covenant?

As I have said before, this is a matter of denouncing scripture based upon the actions of, not Christians, but those whose understanding of scripture was in error. This is done repeatedly here.

In the early Church, when relationship with God was "opened up" to the Gentile community (although it was always open to any who would embrace the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as can be seen in the Law itself) the Gentile nations did have slaves. Philemon and Onesimus come to mind immediately. Read Paul's letter to Philemon.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  How many people were burned alive because of three Hebrew words that mean, “You shall not allow a witch to live”?

And how many that burned (so-called) witches were Judaizers? For this command was given to Israel, not Christians. For a Christian to follow commands given expressly to Israel shows they did not have a sound understanding of the scriptures.

Can you see the discrepancy? Look, I believe that Islam is a false religion, but I do not hate the Islamic adherents nor do I blame every single muslim for the actions of a few. This is what is being done, though the difference being, Islam does in fact have world domination as a goal.

What you are doing is taking the religion of Judaism, which was a God-given religion, and blurring that with Christian doctrine.

You mention those who committed atrocities and call them Christians, but I can assure you there is no command for Christians to burn witches. How about those who were thrown to the lions? Not much is ever said about them.


(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  How many kids have been terrified by stories of roasting in hell if they don’t accept Jesus?

How many kids have been terrified about the consequences of bad behavior? As a believer, I will not fail to tell my kids (and I have none of my own but have helped to raise two neices and a nephew) what scripture teaches.

There are those who call themselves Christians who no longer believe in Hell, but, I do believe that scripture teaches an unending consequence for rejecting God.

There are some things kids need to fear: strangers, for one. Would we not educate our kids that they are to stay near, and that there are nutcases that will snatch them? I did. The youngest is now thirteen, and I still warn her of this.

How much more should I tell them about God? And the consequences of rejecting Him? I know this sounds absurd, but look at it from my point of view, one who believes in God, and that His word gives us knowledge of Him?

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  How many gay people have been driven to self-loathing and suicide because of Leviticus being waved in their faces? I could go on and on . . .

And how many heterosexuals have also been instrumental in both directly killing and being cruel to homosexuals. This is a sad situation. But trying to blame suicides on Christians is not the whole story. I agree that it is probable that many homosexuals have a self-loathing, but I do not think the blame can be laid solely upon Christians. It is true that there are those who call themselves Christians that I would not want to be seen in public with, because they do not show the love of Christ, but a petty hatefulness. I have often been disappointed on Christian forums when such a one comes to this forum and is met with, well, much the same way I have been met here.

But I would guarantee that the self-loathing started long before "Leviticus was waved in anybody's face."

Self loathing is not monopolized by homesexuals, but is something that many, if not most people deal with.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  By all means, I say, read the Bible. But understand that it’s not the “Word of God”

Sorry, but that is an impossibility for me. By it I was saved, and by it I am being transformed into the image of Jesus Christ.

It is real.


(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  —unless God is a monster.

For those who do not like God's character...He is.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  It’s a human document, written by ancient, pre-scientific people,

You deny that ancient cultures were scientific? Have they figured out how the Pyramids were built yet? Did they not have plumbing? Sure, we are far more advanced scientifically, but had we been born 100 years ago, we also would have been barbarians, right?

Just because science was not as advanced, does not mean they were pre-scientific.

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  some of whom rose above their time and some of whom didn’t.

Such as...?

(01-10-2011 04:15 PM)cufflink Wrote:  The best “Guide to the Bible” I can think of is: Take the best and leave the rest.

In other words, "If it works for you..."

Okay, have to stop there, it is dinner time. I do want to have time to answer the next section when I am not rushed, but alas...my time is gone.

Be back when I can.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: