Evidence for God from Science

IceMobster wrote:I still can not understand how can one go crazy like that. Earth being at most 10 000 years old despite ooooooooverwhelming evidence which point to the contrary?

The "evidence" that the earth is old is based on the assumption that there was no worldwide flood. Fossils are formed when living organisms are buried rapidly with no chance to decay or be eaten. In a flood this condition occurs often so if there was a worldwide flood all the dinosaur fossils we have found could have been formed in a short period of time. It there was no flood it would take millions of years for them to form. Scientists can't measure the age of the earth accurately unless they know whether there was a flood.

Jesus compared his return with the days of Noah.

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
(Luke 17:26-27 ESV)

If the flood wasn't world wide does that mean that Jesus is only going to return to part of the earth and the rest will be unaffected by his return?

theophilus wrote:The "evidence" that the earth is old is based on the assumption that there was no worldwide flood.

No, it isn't. The age of the earth is calculated mostly from nuclear decay and is entirely independent of stratigraphy.

Fossils are formed when living organisms are buried rapidly with no chance to decay or be eaten.

No, that's not true either. In most cases it appears that the organisms were dead to start with. It is true that some of their remains had to be sufficiently intact to be preserved, but the absence of complete fossils in so many cases suggests that most of them had been substantially damaged in various ways before fossilisation.

In a flood this condition occurs often so if there was a worldwide flood all the dinosaur fossils we have found could have been formed in a short period of time.

No. Having been buried, the process of fossilisation takes a long time whether the burial is the result of a flood or not. Furthermore, the detailed stratigraphy demonstrating the gradual progression of life through millions of years, even if life was created rather than evolved, could not occur in the circumstances of a flood washing all terrestrial life away simultaneously.

It there was no flood it would take millions of years for them to form.

Whether an organism is buried as the result of a flood or not has no bearing on the length of time it takes to become fossilised.

Scientists can't measure the age of the earth accurately unless they know whether there was a flood.

No. It is possible to estimate the age of the earth very accurately in the absence of any consideration of whether there was a flood or not.

I bet "theo" posted the identical advertisement in every place that he could put it.

There are actually multiple lines of evidence for dating the planet, even the universe.

PaulSacramento wrote:There are actually multiple lines of evidence for dating the planet, even the universe.

Nope. Just the worldwide flood. All other ways that MAN measures the age of the earth is just taking science over Scripture. Since the bible is a science book, we must take God's word over those fallible scientists.

Signed,

Young Earth Is scripture

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There are actually multiple lines of evidence for dating the planet, even the universe.

Nope. Just the worldwide flood. All other ways that MAN measures the age of the earth is just taking science over Scripture. Since the bible is a science book, we must take God's word over those fallible scientists.

Signed,

Young Earth Is scripture

Ask not for whom the book doth toll.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

You know the one thing I never got about this global flood view?
It removes Adam and Eve out of the equation ( to an extent) and causes God to have to start over the creative process to a certain extent.

Mankind is now descended from the 8 people on the boat and not from the time of Adam and Eve BUT from the time after the flood.
All animals that exist now had to have existed then, in the same way ( YEC don't believe in evolution).
Man somehow populated the WHOLE of the planet in a very short time ( less than a couple of thousand of years).
God re-created vegetation ( salt water kills earthbound plant life).
And so forth...

PaulSacramento wrote:You know the one thing I never got about this global flood view?
It removes Adam and Eve out of the equation ( to an extent) and causes God to have to start over the creative process to a certain extent.

Mankind is now descended from the 8 people on the boat and not from the time of Adam and Eve BUT from the time after the flood.
All animals that exist now had to have existed then, in the same way ( YEC don't believe in evolution).
Man somehow populated the WHOLE of the planet in a very short time ( less than a couple of thousand of years).
God re-created vegetation ( salt water kills earthbound plant life).
And so forth...

It has been variously said that there is no limit to the human power of self deception.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You know the one thing I never got about this global flood view?
It removes Adam and Eve out of the equation ( to an extent) and causes God to have to start over the creative process to a certain extent.

Mankind is now descended from the 8 people on the boat and not from the time of Adam and Eve BUT from the time after the flood.
All animals that exist now had to have existed then, in the same way ( YEC don't believe in evolution).
Man somehow populated the WHOLE of the planet in a very short time ( less than a couple of thousand of years).
God re-created vegetation ( salt water kills earthbound plant life).
And so forth...

It has been variously said that there is no limit to the human power of self deception.

And who told you that, yourself?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You know the one thing I never got about this global flood view?
It removes Adam and Eve out of the equation ( to an extent) and causes God to have to start over the creative process to a certain extent.

Mankind is now descended from the 8 people on the boat and not from the time of Adam and Eve BUT from the time after the flood.
All animals that exist now had to have existed then, in the same way ( YEC don't believe in evolution).
Man somehow populated the WHOLE of the planet in a very short time ( less than a couple of thousand of years).
God re-created vegetation ( salt water kills earthbound plant life).
And so forth...

It has been variously said that there is no limit to the human power of self deception.

And who told you that, yourself?

Id say it cuts both ways but that is so binary.

One Young Earth comment amidst all the 'old folk' comments.
The existence of the rainbow. It was God's promise to Never Again flood the Entire Earth. The world has had Lots of Local flooding / hurricaines destroy / deeply impact lots of areas of the world. But Obviously not the Entire World AGAIN. And we can thank God for the beautiful Rainbow and That promise.

Hi Audie "No limit to the human power of self-deception" and other comments you've made. You are Still appreciated

Obviously, the words in the original Hebrew could well support a local flood. And Genesis might well be referencing TWO separate creation events: Beginning with MANKIND, and later, at some point, God subsequently began His lineage (of Christ) with the instant creations of Adam and Eve (totally unconnected from the rest of mankind, already created), and iF the flood was local/regional and not the entire globe, then these would explain a lot about how far humanity had spread, and how old civilization, as opposed to the time range tpically speculated for Adam and Eve to have lived.

Philip wrote:Obviously, the words in the original Hebrew could well support a local flood. And Genesis might well be referencing TWO separate creation events: Beginning with MANKIND, and later, at some point, God subsequently began His lineage (of Christ) with the instant creations of Adam and Eve (totally unconnected from the rest of mankind, already created), and iF the flood was local/regional and not the entire globe, then these would explain a lot about how far humanity had spread, and how old civilization, as opposed to the time range tpically speculated for Adam and Eve to have lived.

Really? My Hebrew is not good, but I don't think the words of Genesis can have the literal meaning of a local flood. There is verse after verse about destroying every living thing on the face of the earth. Genesis 6:17 "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die." Genesis 7:21-23 "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth ..." Can the Hebrew really be translated literally - or must we suppose that every living thing on the earth just happened to be gathered where the local flood was to take place, so that they could all be destroyed?

crochet1949 wrote:One Young Earth comment amidst all the 'old folk' comments.
The existence of the rainbow. It was God's promise to Never Again flood the Entire Earth. The world has had Lots of Local flooding / hurricaines destroy / deeply impact lots of areas of the world. But Obviously not the Entire World AGAIN. And we can thank God for the beautiful Rainbow and That promise.

Hi Audie "No limit to the human power of self-deception" and other comments you've made. You are Still appreciated

Some say that before the purported flood, there was a "water canopy"
that prevented direct sunlight reaching the earth, thus there was no
prismatic diffraction of sunlight.


Or of course, the physics of light could have been those of a parallel universe,
wherein light is not a particle / wave, and is otherwise unaffected by passage through some transparent medium. A prism held in the sunlight of such a universe would not create a spectrum. Nor could water drops.

Which of the above seems to require less self deception?

hughfarey wrote:

Philip wrote:Obviously, the words in the original Hebrew could well support a local flood. And Genesis might well be referencing TWO separate creation events: Beginning with MANKIND, and later, at some point, God subsequently began His lineage (of Christ) with the instant creations of Adam and Eve (totally unconnected from the rest of mankind, already created), and iF the flood was local/regional and not the entire globe, then these would explain a lot about how far humanity had spread, and how old civilization, as opposed to the time range tpically speculated for Adam and Eve to have lived.

Really? My Hebrew is not good, but I don't think the words of Genesis can have the literal meaning of a local flood. There is verse after verse about destroying every living thing on the face of the earth. Genesis 6:17 "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die." Genesis 7:21-23 "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth ..." Can the Hebrew really be translated literally - or must we suppose that every living thing on the earth just happened to be gathered where the local flood was to take place, so that they could all be destroyed?

A local flood would hardly call for an ark such as is described.

Is there some reason it is impossible to accept it as being just a story?

Does it impeach the entire bible, if that part does not happen to reflect any historical facts?