Evidence for God from Science

Job 37:4-8 "Or who shut up the sea with doors,when it brake forth,as if it had issued out of the womb?"
http://www.geologypage.com/2014/08/scie ... z3WdC2Xxcq

Keep in mind the book of Job is the oldest book in the bible.

I think it is close enough considering man's timing and secular science.

No. Nuh nuh nuh nuh no. That's not how this works. You can't decide the flood happened (I've never heard 5200 BC before either , the number 2348 BC follows from the genealogical biblical record ) in 5200 BC because it fits -albeit inexpressibly little- the scientific record. This is cherrypicking of the worse sort, you've completely altered your already preconceived conclusion to try to match with contemporary scientific finding; you're pretty much using a gap argument for the flood. This is the problem with starting with a conclusion.

A far more sound and logical argument would be climate change caused a warming period on earth, causing floods along with severe droughts in certain area's ( if you wanted an explanation for the numerous ancient flood myths).

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

I think it is close enough considering man's timing and secular science.

No. Nuh nuh nuh nuh no. That's not how this works. You can't decide the flood happened (I've never heard 5200 BC before either , the number 2348 BC follows from the genealogical biblical record ) in 5200 BC because it fits -albeit inexpressibly little- the scientific record. This is cherrypicking of the worse sort, you've completely altered your already preconceived conclusion to try to match with contemporary scientific finding; you're pretty much using a gap argument for the flood. This is the problem with starting with a conclusion.

A far more sound and logical argument would be climate change caused a warming period on earth, causing floods along with severe droughts in certain area's ( if you wanted an explanation for the numerous ancient flood myths).

You're jumping to conclusions,all I was doing is trying to lay the ground work and build on from there,I wanted you to acknowledge that it fits biblically with the timing of Noah's flood and I think you agreed that it does.But you think I'm trying to make it fit and assuming the rest of my conclusions.I was trying to go one step at a time but you seem to be too biased to continue.This was discovered and you're choosing to interpret it the way secular man sees it.And yes I am a gap theorist which old earth creationism.I'm not starting with a conclusion I'm just showing first how it amazingly dates to the time of Noah's flood if you believe God restored the heavens and the earth 6-10,000 years ago and made this world on the earth. This means about 4500-6500 years ago.

Also you ignored my point about the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet this is deeper than the tallest mountains on land are Mt Everest is 29,000 feet this proves it is not impossible,like you say acting like there is not enough water on this earth.I just proved you wrong.There is plenty of enough water for a global flood covering the mountains on this earth.

4500 -6500 years ago until Noah's flood.

ConfusedMan wrote:

RickD wrote:

ConfusedMan wrote:Hello everyone. I just stumbled upon a link to a website with some excerpts from a book called Introduction to Biblical Nonsense. I think I will start a little series on this forum where I post a link to the excerpts and see what responses I can give and receive from all you good posters here. I will start with the author's take on Noah's ark. He does have some very challenging points, so put on your think caps.
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

I didn't see any challenging points. It's all been addressed on this forum, or on the home site.

Do you have a specific point in the article that you have an issue with?

I was actually wondering mostly about the issue he brought up about the size of the boat and how supposedly it would be impossible to make a boat that size with just gopher wood and pitch since according to research he did someone tried to build an actual ark that size with reinforced metal and still couldn't do it somehow. Something seems a little fishy about that statement and I was wondering what your take on that was.

Actually that's a good point! Even using todays pressure treated wood, it is impossible to build a structure of that size completely out of wood without any steel reinforcement; and have it float, because wood is too flexible and unstable. There have been many who have tried, but they either had to use steel reinforcements, or they put it on a barge.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

I think it is close enough considering man's timing and secular science.

No. Nuh nuh nuh nuh no. That's not how this works. You can't decide the flood happened (I've never heard 5200 BC before either , the number 2348 BC follows from the genealogical biblical record ) in 5200 BC because it fits -albeit inexpressibly little- the scientific record. This is cherrypicking of the worse sort, you've completely altered your already preconceived conclusion to try to match with contemporary scientific finding; you're pretty much using a gap argument for the flood. This is the problem with starting with a conclusion.

A far more sound and logical argument would be climate change caused a warming period on earth, causing floods along with severe droughts in certain area's ( if you wanted an explanation for the numerous ancient flood myths).

You're jumping to conclusions,all I was doing is trying to lay the ground work and build on from there,I wanted you to acknowledge that it fits biblically with the timing of Noah's flood and I think you agreed that it does.But you think I'm trying to make it fit and assuming the rest of my conclusions.I was trying to go one step at a time but you seem to be too biased to continue.This was discovered and you're choosing to interpret it the way secular man sees it.And yes I am a gap theorist which old earth creationism.I'm not starting with a conclusion I'm just showing first how it amazingly dates to the time of Noah's flood if you believe God restored the heavens and the earth 6-10,000 years ago and made this world on the earth. This means about 4500-6500 years ago.

Also you ignored my point about the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet this is deeper than the tallest mountains on land are Mt Everest is 29,000 feet this proves it is not impossible,like you say acting like there is not enough water on this earth.I just proved you wrong.There is plenty of enough water for a global flood covering the mountains on this earth.

4500 -6500 years ago until Noah's flood.

How does the depth of the Ocean indicate there is enough water to cover the planet to the highest mountains?

Ken

I'll repost what I wrote on the last page.

"Following from known geographic data, 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water would be needed to cover the earth. There's 1.2 in all the world oceans. I can tell you, with near certainty, that there is not 3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the earth.
So to justify your view on the flood, you'd have to completely rewrite current geographic model (to allow something like say 1.7 billion cubic kilometers to cover the earth). Even doing so (which is already beyond the scope of accepted science), you still have problems like "where did it go," a problem I think you addressed with outer space?"


As ken pointed out, saying the depth of the ocean exceeds mount everest proves (or even hints at) absolutely nothing.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I'll repost what I wrote on the last page.

"Following from known geographic data, 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water would be needed to cover the earth. There's 1.2 in all the world oceans. I can tell you, with near certainty, that there is not 3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the earth.
So to justify your view on the flood, you'd have to completely rewrite current geographic model (to allow something like say 1.7 billion cubic kilometers to cover the earth). Even doing so (which is already beyond the scope of accepted science), you still have problems like "where did it go," a problem I think you addressed with outer space?"


As ken pointed out, saying the depth of the ocean exceeds mount everest proves (or even hints at) absolutely nothing.

I can't help it,they are wrong, if the oceans are deeper than the tallest mountains on earth?Mt Everest is 29,000 feet tall but the oceans go down over 36,000 feet proving that there is enough water on the earth for a global flood.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I'll repost what I wrote on the last page.

"Following from known geographic data, 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water would be needed to cover the earth. There's 1.2 in all the world oceans. I can tell you, with near certainty, that there is not 3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the earth.
So to justify your view on the flood, you'd have to completely rewrite current geographic model (to allow something like say 1.7 billion cubic kilometers to cover the earth). Even doing so (which is already beyond the scope of accepted science), you still have problems like "where did it go," a problem I think you addressed with outer space?"


As ken pointed out, saying the depth of the ocean exceeds mount everest proves (or even hints at) absolutely nothing.

I can't help it,they are wrong, if the oceans are deeper than the tallest mountains on earth?Mt Everest is 29,000 feet tall but the oceans go down over 36,000 feet proving that there is enough water on the earth for a global flood.

Please explain why the depth of the Ocean matters.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I'll repost what I wrote on the last page.

"Following from known geographic data, 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water would be needed to cover the earth. There's 1.2 in all the world oceans. I can tell you, with near certainty, that there is not 3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the earth.
So to justify your view on the flood, you'd have to completely rewrite current geographic model (to allow something like say 1.7 billion cubic kilometers to cover the earth). Even doing so (which is already beyond the scope of accepted science), you still have problems like "where did it go," a problem I think you addressed with outer space?"


As ken pointed out, saying the depth of the ocean exceeds mount everest proves (or even hints at) absolutely nothing.

I can't help it,they are wrong, if the oceans are deeper than the tallest mountains on earth?Mt Everest is 29,000 feet tall but the oceans go down over 36,000 feet proving that there is enough water on the earth for a global flood.

Please explain why the depth of the Ocean matters.

Ken

Because the bible tells us there was a world wide flood covering the mountains and so if the oceans are deeper than the mountains on land are? it proves there is enough water on the earth for a world wide global flood over the tallest mountains.Keep in mind Mt Everest is slowing rising and so would've probably been about 43 feet shorter then.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I'll repost what I wrote on the last page.

"Following from known geographic data, 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water would be needed to cover the earth. There's 1.2 in all the world oceans. I can tell you, with near certainty, that there is not 3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the earth.
So to justify your view on the flood, you'd have to completely rewrite current geographic model (to allow something like say 1.7 billion cubic kilometers to cover the earth). Even doing so (which is already beyond the scope of accepted science), you still have problems like "where did it go," a problem I think you addressed with outer space?"


As ken pointed out, saying the depth of the ocean exceeds mount everest proves (or even hints at) absolutely nothing.

I can't help it,they are wrong, if the oceans are deeper than the tallest mountains on earth?Mt Everest is 29,000 feet tall but the oceans go down over 36,000 feet proving that there is enough water on the earth for a global flood.

Please explain why the depth of the Ocean matters.

Ken

Because the bible tells us there was a world wide flood covering the mountains and so if the oceans are deeper than the mountains on land are? it proves there is enough water on the earth for a world wide global flood over the tallest mountains.Keep in mind Mt Everest is slowing rising and so would've probably been about 43 feet shorter then.

But all of that water is contained in the 36,000 feet deep oceans! There isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover Mt everest!

Ken

So then, all the water was somehow floating to reach the highest moutains not occupying the bottoms of the oceans? Law of gravity broken for some time?

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I'll repost what I wrote on the last page.

"Following from known geographic data, 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water would be needed to cover the earth. There's 1.2 in all the world oceans. I can tell you, with near certainty, that there is not 3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the earth.
So to justify your view on the flood, you'd have to completely rewrite current geographic model (to allow something like say 1.7 billion cubic kilometers to cover the earth). Even doing so (which is already beyond the scope of accepted science), you still have problems like "where did it go," a problem I think you addressed with outer space?"


As ken pointed out, saying the depth of the ocean exceeds mount everest proves (or even hints at) absolutely nothing.

I can't help it,they are wrong, if the oceans are deeper than the tallest mountains on earth?Mt Everest is 29,000 feet tall but the oceans go down over 36,000 feet proving that there is enough water on the earth for a global flood.

Please explain why the depth of the Ocean matters.

Ken

Because the bible tells us there was a world wide flood covering the mountains and so if the oceans are deeper than the mountains on land are? it proves there is enough water on the earth for a world wide global flood over the tallest mountains.Keep in mind Mt Everest is slowing rising and so would've probably been about 43 feet shorter then.

But all of that water is contained in the 36,000 feet deep oceans! There isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover Mt everest!

Ken

The oceans were much shallower then until the water that come out of the earth and the water level would start rising,this is indicated that the flood waters rose 7 days before it started to rain,the rain produced by water shooting up into the atmosphere would condense causing it to rain,and the water level rose above the tops of the mountains,then the waters settled pushing down on the earth's crust,the earth's crust is much thinner under the oceans- for every action there's a reaction,so the weight of the water would push down and settle while pushing up some land and with the oceans being so deep every mountain would be covered until the water settled,there are oceans of water inside the earth.It took about a year for the flood waters to settle producing the deep oceans we have now.

Kenny wrote:

ConfusedMan wrote:

RickD wrote:

ConfusedMan wrote:Hello everyone. I just stumbled upon a link to a website with some excerpts from a book called Introduction to Biblical Nonsense. I think I will start a little series on this forum where I post a link to the excerpts and see what responses I can give and receive from all you good posters here. I will start with the author's take on Noah's ark. He does have some very challenging points, so put on your think caps.
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

I didn't see any challenging points. It's all been addressed on this forum, or on the home site.

Do you have a specific point in the article that you have an issue with?

I was actually wondering mostly about the issue he brought up about the size of the boat and how supposedly it would be impossible to make a boat that size with just gopher wood and pitch since according to research he did someone tried to build an actual ark that size with reinforced metal and still couldn't do it somehow. Something seems a little fishy about that statement and I was wondering what your take on that was.

Actually that's a good point! Even using todays pressure treated wood, it is impossible to build a structure of that size completely out of wood without any steel reinforcement; and have it float, because wood is too flexible and unstable. There have been many who have tried, but they either had to use steel reinforcements, or they put it on a barge.

Ken

Yeah, I was given a link to an article where a bunch of physics students said that it could work, but they didn't take into account the materials used and just assumed according to their calculations that it could work. However, these are just students, not professional physicists. Also, if the flood destroyed every other human being and animal (not on the ark), where are their fossil remains? After only a few thousand years you think there would be a prominent number of human and animal fossils evident in the upper layer of the earths crust.

Humor me for a moment. In order for the Flood story to be true, we have to believe God exists.

So, for the sake of the story as it's written in Genesis, assume God exists. According to the story, God told Noah how to build the ark. So, assuming God exists, is it out of the scope of reality to believe that God would know how to have Noah build an ark?

ConfusedMan wrote:

Kenny wrote:

ConfusedMan wrote:

RickD wrote:

ConfusedMan wrote:Hello everyone. I just stumbled upon a link to a website with some excerpts from a book called Introduction to Biblical Nonsense. I think I will start a little series on this forum where I post a link to the excerpts and see what responses I can give and receive from all you good posters here. I will start with the author's take on Noah's ark. He does have some very challenging points, so put on your think caps.
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

I didn't see any challenging points. It's all been addressed on this forum, or on the home site.

Do you have a specific point in the article that you have an issue with?

I was actually wondering mostly about the issue he brought up about the size of the boat and how supposedly it would be impossible to make a boat that size with just gopher wood and pitch since according to research he did someone tried to build an actual ark that size with reinforced metal and still couldn't do it somehow. Something seems a little fishy about that statement and I was wondering what your take on that was.

Actually that's a good point! Even using todays pressure treated wood, it is impossible to build a structure of that size completely out of wood without any steel reinforcement; and have it float, because wood is too flexible and unstable. There have been many who have tried, but they either had to use steel reinforcements, or they put it on a barge.

Ken

Yeah, I was given a link to an article where a bunch of physics students said that it could work, but they didn't take into account the materials used and just assumed according to their calculations that it could work. However, these are just students, not professional physicists. Also, if the flood destroyed every other human being and animal (not on the ark), where are their fossil remains? After only a few thousand years you think there would be a prominent number of human and animal fossils evident in the upper layer of the earths crust.

Can you post a link for the study? I'm curious to see their calculations.

"After only a few thousand years you think there would be a prominent number of human and animal fossils evident in the upper layer of the earths crust."

That's a good thought! I'm actually very interested to hear how global flood theorist respond. ACB will have one I'm sure.