The biblical flood date

[Audie]

e.

Jac keeps firing blindly.

Oh? I wont comment on the religious aspect of it, but everything else he said is exactly right on.

[Audie]

Audie -- why not engage me on this topic -- I was mentioning more than one topic --so which are you referring to. On the subject of fossils, alone, someone could 'rip me to shreds' with technical information that I'd have no way to confirm or deny with my limited knowledge on the subject.

I have spent a LOT of time on it. One very simple thing I can tell you is that there is a succession of changes to be clearly seen thro' time, in the fossil record. That means something.

The debate about a local / global flood is but an example of whether a person acknowledges the existence of God and His power / ability TO.

No, nope, not at all. If there is a god, he could do as he likes. The question is, did he.
He did not make the moon out of platinum or cheese; we can verify that. He did not do a world wide flood; that is also easy to verify.

My (ex) father in law is one of the most intellectual people I know. He is a Christian.
He coudl do an excellent job of explaining both biblically and scientifically why there was no flood. Far better than I on the science, But then he has a PhD in geology.

How about a flood / Tons of water from both directions = both Under the earth and from rain coming from the sky -- enough to kill every living creature / person on the planet. And because people had chosen to live in such a vile, wicked way that God/our creator / decided it best to destroy them -- BUT Not before Warning them for a Long time of what was coming. It Sounds like people don't like to held accountable for their actions by some Being who is More Powerful.

It is a story. A cautionary tale. That is all.

And it Is more than taking responsibility for our own actions -- because Lots of people Don't. They blame someone / Anyone for their problems

Sure, and that goes for every race creed color religion etc.

. So -- yes -- by all means we take responsibility for our own actions and pay the penalty. BUT bring in that Higher Power and 'No Thanks'. And a spiritual world that is invisible -- No Way. If I can't See it -- I Won't believe in it.

Who knows, maybe someone thinks that way. I dont know any such people.

But there Are aspects of life that Can't be 'seen', except on a person's face / a peacefulness that can't be put in a petri dish or 'seen' like a person's arm or leg. 'Love' can be an emotion that isn't Visible except through the actions of the person Feeling it / Showing it

And some that can be seen, touched, measured, tested in all manner of ways. Like that the ocean is not boiling hot nor filled with pink unicorns.
And that there was no flood.

Doesnt the presence of ancient ice somehow seem odd to you, if there had been a flood?
Not even a little odd? Like that little nagging doubt that you sometimes get, something is not right here?

[PaulSacramento]

The sheer silliness of arguing about this...
*shakes head*...
Next up, flat earth !

[Audie]

The sheer silliness of arguing about this...
*shakes head*...
Next up, flat earth !

What, exactly, is silly?

I think there is some merit in clear thinking and freedom from superstition.

A lot of harm in rejecting fact in favour of dogma.

If you mean the whole Noah's Ark story is head-shake silly, well, you know how i see that one.

[crochet1949]

Audie -- so -- apparently you Do believe in the spirit world?!

So - no pink unicorns in the ocean? Awe shucks. And no tooth fairy , either, I suppose.

Honestly I never associated ancient ice with the flood.

[crochet1949]

The sheer silliness of arguing about this...
*shakes head*...
Next up, flat earth !

Who's arguing? By the way -- the earth is not - never has been flat.

[Audie]

[quote="crochet1949"

]Audie -- so -- apparently you Do believe in the spirit world?!

I dunno. I saw something one time. But nothing I said above is intended to state or imply such a belief.

So - no pink unicorns in the ocean? Awe shucks. And no tooth fairy , either, I suppose.

Crushing of the final illusion can be painful. Sorry.

Honestly I never associated ancient ice with the flood

It is a thing. The ice is older than any possible date for a flood, Yet it is there, undisturbed.

What do YOU suppose that might mean?

[RickD]

The sheer silliness of arguing about this...
*shakes head*...
Next up, flat earth !

Who's arguing? By the way -- the earth is not - never has been flat.

Never been flat?

The earth was a globe. After the worldwide flood, the earth became flat. After the fountains of the deep inside the earth, opened up, and all the water in the water canopy was released, it caused the global earth to be reshaped into a flat earth.

Do not believe NASA!!!

Signed,

[Audie]

The sheer silliness of arguing about this...
*shakes head*...
Next up, flat earth !

Who's arguing? By the way -- the earth is not - never has been flat.

Never been flat?

The earth was a globe. After the worldwide flood, the earth became flat. After the fountains of the deep inside the earth, opened up, and all the water in the water canopy was released, it caused the global earth to be reshaped into a flat earth.

Do not believe NASA!!!

Signed,

too bad you didnt think of hydroplate before WB did, you could be all over the place giving for-fee lectures to the gullible rubes.

[RickD]

The sheer silliness of arguing about this...
*shakes head*...
Next up, flat earth !

Who's arguing? By the way -- the earth is not - never has been flat.

Never been flat?

The earth was a globe. After the worldwide flood, the earth became flat. After the fountains of the deep inside the earth, opened up, and all the water in the water canopy was released, it caused the global earth to be reshaped into a flat earth.

Do not believe NASA!!!

Signed,

too bad you didnt think of hydroplate before WB did, you could be all over the place giving for-fee lectures to the gullible rubes.

I would've had to do it for free, because money is of the devil.

Signed,

[crochet1949]

Okay -- now that we've all been having our 'fun' -- I'm going to make some Serious comments.

My understanding is that there have been several 'ice ages' -- ice is frozen water -- so there was a lot of water frozen at some points in time. Ancient ice would simply mean that there was a lot of water that froze a long time ago. The outside temp has to stay at least just below 32 degrees to keep it frozen for any period of time. A flood would give a lot more ice to deal with. Living in Iowa / Minn / Wisc. -- when I was growing up -- lots of snow and ice to deal with and warmer temps melted everything and was known to cause flooding. The ground reabsorbs the water / it evaporates and the cycle repeats itself every winter.

A flat earth -- the globe is obviously circular -- gravity prevents everything from floating off into space. But the earth - Ground -- some Is indeed flatter than other parts. Parts of Texas are very flat as is part of Iowa. At the time of the flood -- the high hills were only 15 cubits high -- Genesis 7:20. Very flat compared to the Grand Canyon and Pikes Peak and the Himalayan Mountains that we have now or the Swiss Alps. Which shows that there was a Great Upheaval of the earth brought on by the (7:11) fountains of the great deep being broken up and the windows of heaven being opened.

Audie -- you said that those years ago, you Did see 'something' that you couldn't explain and no one else had seen. Well -- isn't it just Possible that That was Your time to 'see' the spirit world. It's something Not explainable as Normal. God and the angels talked about in the Old Testament -- very real. And , no, those of us who Do believe do Not belong in a phych ward somewhere.

The world of 'dogma' -- teaching that is 'insisted on' by a church. Sometimes it is considered 'dogma' if a 'church' takes Some parts of Scripture and decides to add to it and insists it is Official. Even though it's not taught in Scripture as such.

[Audie]

Okay -- now that we've all been having our 'fun' -- I'm going to make some Serious comments.

My understanding is that there have been several 'ice ages' -- ice is frozen water -- so there was a lot of water frozen at some points in time. Ancient ice would simply mean that there was a lot of water that froze a long time ago. The outside temp has to stay at least just below 32 degrees to keep it frozen for any period of time. A flood would give a lot more ice to deal with. Living in Iowa / Minn / Wisc. -- when I was growing up -- lots of snow and ice to deal with and warmer temps melted everything and was known to cause flooding. The ground reabsorbs the water / it evaporates and the cycle repeats itself every winter.

A flat earth -- the globe is obviously circular -- gravity prevents everything from floating off into space. But the earth - Ground -- some Is indeed flatter than other parts. Parts of Texas are very flat as is part of Iowa. At the time of the flood -- the high hills were only 15 cubits high -- Genesis 7:20. Very flat compared to the Grand Canyon and Pikes Peak and the Himalayan Mountains that we have now or the Swiss Alps. Which shows that there was a Great Upheaval of the earth brought on by the (7:11) fountains of the great deep being broken up and the windows of heaven being opened.

Audie -- you said that those years ago, you Did see 'something' that you couldn't explain and no one else had seen. Well -- isn't it just Possible that That was Your time to 'see' the spirit world. It's something Not explainable as Normal. God and the angels talked about in the Old Testament -- very real. And , no, those of us who Do believe do Not belong in a phych ward somewhere.

The world of 'dogma' -- teaching that is 'insisted on' by a church. Sometimes it is considered 'dogma' if a 'church' takes Some parts of Scripture and decides to add to it and insists it is Official. Even though it's not taught in Scripture as such.

Glaciers are formed when more snow falls in winter than melts in the summer.
Typically, high (depending on latitude) in mountains, or in the polar area.

As the snow piles deeper, its weight compresses the lower snow into ice.
When the depth / weight is sufficient, the ice will begin to deform, flow, slide.

Each year of ice can be identified visually, chemically, and by electrical conductivity.

It has been tested over and over; it works. An easy to remember example is the eruption
of vesuvias in AD79. Pompeii, all of that. The ash and sulfuric acid went all around the
earth, some ending up in glaciers. Count down the layers in an ice core to that year.

There is the ash, as identifiable as a fingerprint. There is the spike in the acid content.
The organic matter carbon tests to the same date.

So that is something about glaciers. Far far more complex than just a block of ice!

Now, that the ice in Greenland and Antarctica is ancient; even Ab admits that.
Far far older than any possible flood date. There is no reasonable argument that it is not ancient.

Ice floats. It also melts. Glaciers are full of crevasses, often open all the way to
bedrock. Its not one big cohesive ice cube.

Now, IF this flood were to occur, the ice starts to go underwater. At about
9/10 under, it will start to float.

Then what do you think will happen?

[crochet1949]

Maybe you could tell me what will happen

You don't believe there ever was a flood. Try to assume there Was one and go on That premise.

[Audie]

Maybe you could tell me what will happen

You don't believe there ever was a flood. Try to assume there Was one and go on That premise.

Pretty simple concepts. I've thought it thru. The value is for you to think, not for me to
tell you. You dont believe what I say anyway.

[abelcainsbrother]

I just do not understand why people can get so upset just because you don't agree.I don't,now sure I'm gonna try to back up what I believe is true and it can get frustrating when you feel like you have backed yourself up and yet it is ignored. But I've had many discussions on here and I've never got mean or nasty over a disagreement and to me it makes a person look weak when they do it.This forum has room for disagreement and especially if we are a Christian.Nobody has a 100% authority on their interpretation,yet for a lot of us we really believe our interpretation or belief is the correct one.I think some people avoid discussing certain things because they see certain people get so upset over somebody disagreeing with them.We can agree to disagree and not get mean or nasty about it.

What bothers me the most has to do with salvation and heresies when it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord,differences in interpretations like creation,flood,etc are not nearly as important as if a person is truly saved or not,or if they are promoting some false gospel teaching.As long as a person has truly been saved by Jesus whatever creation interpretation they believe or whether or not they accept a world wide or local flood,etc does not make them not a Christian,they are a brother or sister in Christ,regardless,but I think we should be able to discuss our differences in order to make sure we have not overlooked anything and to make sure we are right or not and even to challenge ourselves honestly with the Holy Spirit as our guide to truth.

The problem isn't disagreement, it is intellectual dishonesty, may that be unintentional. In other words, it's not what you are saying (although you are wrong on that front), it's how you engage without anything to backup except your opinion, which is just that, and everyone has one. But you need to cite studies and accept criticism where it falls when you are talking about complicated things like glacial ice.

Neo even me and you have had discussions about things and we did not necessarily agree,but we did not get mad at each other,judge each other,etc over it. The reason why I did not back myself up about glacial ice is because of the tone,plus I had already explained that I was not being technical but just having a discussion about it and yet suddenly I was expected to get technical about it when I could tell it was just a set-up.The discussion was ruined and so I was just trying to get out of the discussion.I could back myself up up now about glacial ice,but it wouldn't matter.I was not just making up stuff and everybody does not back their self up either. Like Audie in this thread she is doing what I did just explaining things from a scientific perspective. Is she backing herself up? No,which is what I was doing.We assume she is being truthful as she understands it.