Genesis flood question to ponder

[Legatus]

jlay, simply put, the amount of evidence that the world is 4.5 billion or so years old is massive, so your earthage site is obviously cherry picking data to support what they want to believe. Cherry picking is just a fancy way of saying "lying", thats a sin. By cherry picking, you can first lie to yourself, that dosn't make it less a sin, because now you have lied TWICE. The bible supports the evidence of an old earth, therefore, there is absolutly NO reason for those earthage types to belive what they believe.

Or is there... Imagine, if you will, what Satan sees. He first saw. himself, the creation of this universe, and later this world. he sees where the bible says things like " Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Then, mankind, after (dare I say it!) actually reading their bible, sees that it says this, and sees that it says mankind is sinfull and fallible, and, deciding to see this evidence of the natural world that God says is there and shows Him, invents "the scientific method", which is basically looking at the natural world using a mothod designed to screen out mankinds fallibility and sinfullness from their conclusions from what they see. But that results in a problem, for Satan, science must eventually lead people to God, what to do?

From Satans Viewpoint

Well, this is a problem, see? If mankind honestly looks at the natural world, they will see God, we certainly don't want that! So what to do?
A man, reading the paper: Well, these evolution fellers say that God dosn't need to exist for life to come about, it can just evolve over millions and millions of years (not actually true, but we make sure that those views don't make the paper).
Satan: They are saying that God does not exist! You don't want That, do you? (Note to young tempters, they didn't actually say that, but don't let the man notice)
Man: Well...no.
Satan: So you can't let them get away with this millions and millions of years stuff! The bible says that it was created in only six days!
Man: But the bible word could mean...
Satan: You don't want people to go to HELL, do you?
Man: Well, no...
Satan: Then there can't be millions and millions of years! (Note to young tempters, notice the exclaimation points, keep this on an emotional level, you certainly don't want them THINKING! You KNOW where THAT leads!)
Satan: If theres no millions and millions of years, there's no evolution! Then they will HAVE to beleive in God! You want people to believe, don't you? (Actually, we have kept people from believing in God for a looong time without any evolutionary ideas, but don't let HIM think that)
Man: Of course!
Satan: Good! Then tell them that it was only six days, and they will go to heaven! Tell them not to listen to those Evil, Godless Evolutionists! Think of the children! (We like to make nice, mindless slogans like that. We also want to turn this into "us versus them", it so stimulates the emotions, and gets them to blindly follow anyone who will stop "them". "They are after your children, they must be stopped!")
Man: Yes, I will stop those Evil, Godless Evolutionists! I will save the children! (Keep him fixated on apposing THEM, you don't want him fixated on TRUTH, do you? You know where THAT leads! Keep him fixated on apposing THEM, and he will be a lot easier to lead around. If it apposes THEM, it is good, even if you, uh, have to fudge a little. Whats a few fallacious arguments, or cherry picked data compared to "saving the children" from the eeeeevil THEM?)
Satan: Now go forth and fight the noble fight against Them! Dosn't it feel good, aren't you so noble and heroic?
Man: Yes, this does feel good, I feel I am doing something great here! (See, now we have stimulated the sin of Pride, our favorite! The more we stimulate it, the less he will know he has it! Why, more pride must mean he's doing more good, right? Soon, he will be unable to back out of whatever we get him to believe to oppose "Them", because his pride won't let him. Then, we can start on the "error begets error" path and lead him further and further into one error to cover up and support the last one.And then, the Nobel Cause Corruption, why, ANY tactic to stop "Them" will be seen to be good. And I sure you can think of places where THAT can lead!)

Satan: To all you young tempters out there, I hope this has been instructive of how we got to the wonderfull position we are in today, "The War Of Science Versus Religion". We have large parts of "the chruch" fixated on stopping "Those Evil, Godless Evolutionists" (and abortion, and the homosdexual agenda, which is wonderfull because it actually effects so few people yet the church runs in fear from it) that they see and do little else. As long as we keep them fixated on perifrial issues like this, we can keep them from doing what that Jesus fellow told them to do. As long as we keep them fixated on the idea "Stop Evil", we can keep them from ever even thinking about the idea "Do Good". Besides, doing is so, you know, active, this way, we keep them passive, huddled in their churches, staying away from the world, and thus, no threat to us.

But wait, there's more! And this is where the real beauty (ugh!) of my plan comes in! We not only have the church fixating on apposing "Them", we then use that to stimulate our real master plan! Now, we simply go to the scientist and say "look what those ignorant religious types are saying, you've got to appose Them, think of the children!" Now, we can get the science types to use any tactic, or any argument, especially unscientific ones, to stop "those ignorant religious types". Never mind that those religious types invented this thing called science. Now, we are stimmulating pride, and the use of any argument, to get their 'scientific" point of view accross, while simultaneously getting them further and further away from the actual scientific method! And we have made great strides in gathering them into large bureaucratic organizations, with "leaders" who insist on the party line, and "peer review" to assure that only "approved" ideas get published. Thye feel safer from "those religious types" huddled togehter like that. Surely a bigger organization is needed to appose that great groundswell of religious ignorance! The bigger they are, the more easily we can controll them, now we only need control the leaders, rather than having to watch every one of them.

And that leads right into The Great Plan, we have now harnessed propagandists, thinking they are scientists, who go around telling people, quite rightly, that the church is apposed to science. Since we have the church believing things that are easily proven false, even by poor scientists (which we are glad to say, are becoming much more prevelant, since we stamped out teaching the scientific method), we can say "the church is living in the dark ages, that old stuff is all a bunch of superstitious mumbo jumbo". Now, we have the majority of people believing that "that religious stuff" is just myth, after all, they think the world was made in six days! And then, this stimulates the church to retreat even more, hanging out only with each other, and believing ever stonger in the "rightness of their cause", which we keep fixated on "apposing Them". Thus, when our pseudo scientists are shrill in their propaganda, the church must be even more shrill, making them use even sillier arguments, and look even stupider! Thus, we stimulate both sides to ever more stupidity and lies to protect their side, and thus, we can destroy both. All that will be left will be people who believe a bunch of scientific sounding slogans, and who feel proud that they gave up all that religious nonsense, without ever, you know, doing any real science anymore. We have now turned that dangerous idea, science, into nothing but a bunch of white coated priests, who say 'scientists believe", without ever thinking how silly that is.

And as we continue this "'war of science versus religion" that we have so artfully created, we expect that the church'es arguments will get so silly that even many of it's youngsters will see the silliness of it, and simply leave, as many already have. Soon, the church will wither away and be no more, leaving only the ignorant masses, thinking they beleive in science, without, ever, actually knowing what it is anymore. And then, we will have won!

But keep on your guard! We almost had them that last time, and then they had that reformation thing! We don't want a repeat of THAT, do we? Patrol the forums, make sure those relegious types don't start, you know, THINKING, or reading the bible, and seeing what it so plainly says about all this. Especially, don't let them use that scientific method, or rational thinking, keep them fixated on "apposing THEM", those Evil Godless Evolutionists. As long as you keep them fixated on apposing THEM, our victory is certain. Make sure you see that anyone who does not toe our party line is said to side with THEM, those Evil Godless Evolutionists. Any ideas which even in a small way stray from Our Approved List must be stamped out.

With no apologies to C S Lewis, who could probably do it better.

[jlay]

I suggest if you are going to acuse someone of lying that you be specific. Otherwise, you are using faulty logic, and pretty sorry debate tactics. Further, I didn't spedifically mention the age of the earth. If it is so obvious then it should be easy to address with facts, and not attacks.

jlay, simply put, the amount of evidence that the world is 4.5 billion or so years old is massive,

Evidence doesn't speak. That is an arbitary saying and not truthful. Evidence is ALWAYS to be interpreted. And it is ALWAYS interpreted with presuppositions. The scientific method is just that. A method. And EVERYONE interprets from a worldview. In other words, you have glasses, I have glasses. We could both be wrong, but we can't both be right. You have presuppositions, just like anyone else.

I love your little attempt to reduce YEC down to a bunch of dunces who have been fooled by the devil. That's a straw man. You just made up an entire imaginary situation so you could knock it down. Clever, but it doesn't answer the questions.

And as we continue this "'war of science versus religion" that we have so artfully created, we expect that the church'es arguments will get so silly that even many of it's youngsters will see the silliness of it, and simply leave, as many already have.

I agree. The problem is that because your argument is arbitrary I could just simply turn the whole thing back around on you. The church would be silly to be a friend of the world. James 4:4
Or, to give into arguments because they are consensus in the minds of men. 2 Cor 10:4-5

Quite honestly, I am not sure just what all this rant is about. But it is full of snobbery, fallacious attacks, faulty premises, and that is just for starters.

I provided some info defending a faulty argument. It has yet to be rightly addressed.

Just where do all wisdom and knowledge begin? Col 2:3.

[RickD]

Here is an article from a very good website (imo), that happens to be YEC. http://www.gotquestions.org/old-earth-creationism.html

[RickD]

Legatus wrote:

The bible supports the evidence of an old earth, therefore, there is absolutly NO reason for those earthage types to belive what they believe.

The Bible can be used to support Old Earth, Young Earth, and even Theistic Evolution. it just depends on one's interpretation of the Bible. Young earth proponents say evidence of a flood in North America shows that the flood at Noah's time was global. Old Earth proponents say that evidence of a flood in North America shows that there was just another local flood in North America. YECs and OECs have the same evidence, but the evidence is interpreted differently to fit each side's worldview. Maybe soon we will be more sure if either side is correct on its interpretation. Future scientific findings should point one way (YEC) or the other(OEC), if either is correct. It may be "proved" that neither side is accurate. Isn't it great that we have the freedom in Christ to disagree about this topic, while we can agree on Christ crucified?

[Byblos]

Legatus wrote:

The bible supports the evidence of an old earth, therefore, there is absolutly NO reason for those earthage types to belive what they believe.

The Bible can be used to support Old Earth, Young Earth, and even Theistic Evolution. it just depends on one's interpretation of the Bible. Young earth proponents say evidence of a flood in North America shows that the flood at Noah's time was global. Old Earth proponents say that evidence of a flood in North America shows that there was just another local flood in North America. YECs and OECs have the same evidence, but the evidence is interpreted differently to fit each side's worldview. Maybe soon we will be more sure if either side is correct on its interpretation. Future scientific findings should point one way (YEC) or the other(OEC), if either is correct. It may be "proved" that neither side is accurate. Isn't it great that we have the freedom in Christ to disagree about this topic, while we can agree on Christ crucified?

We need to add a 'like' button on here.

[Gman]

Well the so called "global flood" is certainly one of the biggest problems for the YEC'ers. Not to mention getting all those animals in the ark and caring for them. Having them drink salt water and such. To tell you the truth, scientifically they don't have a leg to stand on. The only real thing they might have a case is the interpretation of scripture which if you really study it, that pretty much falls apart too.

Yes, the theory of the ark being able to house 2 animals of every kind throughout the entire earth doesn't seem remotely possible to me either. But, Gman, since you believe in OEC, is there anything that been a so called "stumbling block" to you in your OEC beliefs? I guess I'm asking if there is any YEc interpretation of evidence that seems to fit into a young earth model? Like some thing that has made you think, " I know I'm OEC, but "x" really does make more sense in the YEC model"? I've asked this question before to OECs, and haven't gotten an answer. This has lead me to believe that either: 1) OECS don't believe there are any flaws to the OEC model. or 2) OECs aren't secure enough in their position to acknowledge a strongpoint in the YEC model. Or 3) nobody really cares to answer my question.

Sorry for the delay.. I don't see any evidence that seems to fit into a young earth model... Really nothing..

[DannyM]

Legatus wrote:

The bible supports the evidence of an old earth, therefore, there is absolutly NO reason for those earthage types to belive what they believe.

The Bible can be used to support Old Earth, Young Earth, and even Theistic Evolution. it just depends on one's interpretation of the Bible. Young earth proponents say evidence of a flood in North America shows that the flood at Noah's time was global. Old Earth proponents say that evidence of a flood in North America shows that there was just another local flood in North America. YECs and OECs have the same evidence, but the evidence is interpreted differently to fit each side's worldview. Maybe soon we will be more sure if either side is correct on its interpretation. Future scientific findings should point one way (YEC) or the other(OEC), if either is correct. It may be "proved" that neither side is accurate. Isn't it great that we have the freedom in Christ to disagree about this topic, while we can agree on Christ crucified?

We need to add a 'like' button on here.

What and go all 'facebook'? Please, Byb, No, No, No...

[kmr]

I'd say that if the water rose that high, there wouldn't still be any atmosphere at the old sea level, it would all just shift above the water because of pressure... in essence, 29000 feet above sea level wouldn't be 29000 feet above sea level if the seas were that high, it would be at sea level.

[kmr]

By the way, jlay, have you read "The New Answers Book" by Ken Ham?

[jlay]

I have not.

[kmr]

It's one of those extremely conservative christian YEC books, and it has a lot of the same ideas that you expressed... I was just curious

[musician]

I just thought about this question. If the flood was truly global as some creationists suggest, and the tops of the highest mountains were covered, including Mt. Everest, then how did those on the ark breathe? If Mt. Everest is 29,000 feet above sea level, and water seeks its own level, then the ark must have been floating over 29,000 feet above sea level. How did Noah, his family, and all the animals breathe with the low oxygen levels at that height? Just a thought for the YECs to ponder. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it's new to me.

Displacement?

- Nathan

[RickD]

Here is an article from a very good website (imo), that happens to be YEC. http://www.gotquestions.org/old-earth-creationism.html

It's refreshing to see someone who believes in YEC that actually honestly looks at OEC. The prominent YEC websites I've seen have misrepresented OEC to such an extent that I'm not willing to look at anything else they have to say about different subjects. Gotquestions.org, imo looks at each question honestly and biblically. That's all we should ask of any site, whether OEC or YEC.

[zoegirl]

that is nice!

[kmr]

^Good article^