Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:22 pm**

Forum Monk wrote:I am engaging in this discussion because its an open forum and I have refuted all of your mistranslation arguments before.

Really? When? Well the Bible is claiming that God not only created our physical world but he also manipulates it as well.. Your claims are that absolutely "none" of the sciences we understand today support this view. So basically the Bible "only" deals with miracles and our science is completely incompatible with it. The problem is here is that the God of the Bible claims that he created everything we see (in Genesis and others), brought on the flood, etc.... So which view is right?

Forum Monk wrote:I am concerned about altering the meaning of the Bible.

Who's interpretation of the Bible? Those who interpreted it long ago when our science was weak or those who are interpreting it now?

Forum Monk wrote:It is not necessary unless you want to fit it into your local flood; everyone lived in one place, scenario which doesn't work on so many levels when trying to reconcile not only the scriptural account but the science as well. For example, your "all flesh" argument, while technically correct, can be interpreted as "man has corrupted" diminishes the case being made just a few verses before when God said he would destroy men and animals and birds:

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Yes.. We've already been down this road before so I will copy and paste this from another section.. I'm too tired to write it out again.

"I don't believe there were any "ifs" here.. I think the Bible clearly states that the flood mainly happened as a response to the wickedness of man, not animals.. If so the focus was on mankind.. Unfortunately many animals lived near the humans so they met their doom as well.

Here in Genesis 6:5 it is attributing to man's "thoughts of the heart" being "evil" all the time. Nowhere else in the Bible I can see where animals were attributed to having evil or immoral thoughts.. If they did, we better start reading them their rights in our courts of law...

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Here God grieves that he made man, not the animals directly...

Genesis: 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Again because of the violence of man God is going to destroy the earth..

Genesis 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Forum Monk wrote:In addition, I explained before how the New Testament accounts of the flood use similar language so now you must say the Greek was mistranslated as well in order maintain this argument.

Already went over that... Later confirmed in the NT..

2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

Forum Monk wrote:All air breathing creatures is the point that was made and to refute these verses with a faulty english translation argument requires a rewrite of large parts of Genesis. Then the deeper one goes into the line of reasoning that the flood was local the more problems arise. Everyone lived in one geographical area, it didn't mean mountains were covered, they meant hills, He didn't mean all animals just the unlucky ones, and on and on. Pretty soon, Genesis is completely altered and then the spritiual message it was written to convey is probably no longer recognizable which describes the universal and sweeping judgement of God and illustrates the point that all of creation has been corrupted by the fall. Not a few.

I think its a significant issue that allows any emerging point of view to alter the meanings of scripture just enough to support any abberant point of view. It was used with tragic results in by the Nazi's for example. (Of course no one here is to that extreme but it nicely illustrates the principle I am trying to make.)

Well a close examination of the Hebrew and Greek refutes that claim...

Forum Monk wrote:So now, hopefully, you understand why I interrupted and why I am concerned.

FM

Err.. Not really...

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:28 pm**

jenwat3 wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
jenwat3 wrote:God also said He would destroy ALL life. Surely there was life in other areas than just that local area.
Here is a question. Why would God need to destroy creatures when it was humanity who were wicked? Does not this seem a bit rash or even unfair to punish innocent animals along with humanity?
Maybe it does, but that's what the bible says. I'm sure God has His reasons.

If you search out Scripture you will find the reason why God caused the flood. Not to pass offload the work to you, but can you find the reason given in Scripture for why God brought on the flood?

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:46 pm**

Gman,
You're arguing with yourself. I already said that technically, according to strict and literal translation you are correct: judgement came because of MAN's corruption. But what was destroyed as a result? You said it yourself in both the old and new testament: the EARTH. That is the point. Everything died except those who God chose to save. Surely you can see that?

FM

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:07 pm**

Yes. God created the flood because mankind had become so evil that God couldn't stand the sight of us anymore. The way He chose to start over was to wipe ALL life away from the earth, except for Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark. God made the choice to end all other life, and unfortunately the animals had to die also. When I said God had His reasons, I was talking about the animals having to die and nothing else. We cannot even begin to know the mind of God.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:16 pm**

Oh, and Kurieuo,(spelling?) any time you want to give me a "workload", be my guest! I enjoy looking up scripture and coming up with answers. That's one reason why I love this board! I can get input from Christians and look up scriptures. For me this is a GREAT way to study my bible. Anyone who wants can give me a "workload" any day!

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:49 pm**

Forum Monk wrote:Gman,
You're arguing with yourself.

You were talking about animals being involved in the flood earlier.. Please make your statements clearer then.

Forum Monk wrote:I already said that technically, according to strict and literal translation you are correct: judgement came because of MAN's corruption. But what was destroyed as a result? You said it yourself in both the old and new testament: the EARTH. That is the point. Everything died except those who God chose to save. Surely you can see that?

FM

Yeah but man's corruption doesn't imply that the whole earth (or animals) had to be destroyed because of man's sins... Especially if man lived in a smaller area.

Kurieuo already tackled the NT and OT wording of the word "earth" next page over.... But here is more about the Greek understanding of the word "kosmos" or world if you want again. This is from another quote:

"A New Testament example of "world" used to mean something less than the globe comes from Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome. He began by complimenting the Romans for their faith Romans 1:8. Their faith was so exemplary that it was "being reported all over the world." Did Paul mean in every region of the planet, or did he mean in the world defined by the boundaries of the Roman Empire? The latter represented "the whole world" for citizens of that empire, including Paul himself, though they were not ignorant of land and perhaps peoples beyond.

The apostle Peter made a specific comment on the extent of the Genesis Flood:

2 Peter 3:5-6:
"For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the "world at that time was destroyed," being flooded with water."

The Greek word translated "world," kosmos, has these definitions:

1. the whole universe.
2. the whole planet Earth.
3. the whole of humanity, or a portion of Earth.

An indication that the last definition applies in this verse comes from the qualifying phrase "of that time."

Scripture contains many more references to the whole world that we recognize to mean "the known world" rather than the entire planet. No one can reasonably say that to interpret "world" in the writer's context makes a lie of the text..."

Most of the OT wording of the "earth" is addressed here..

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:47 am**

jenwat3 wrote:Yes. God created the flood because mankind had become so evil that God couldn't stand the sight of us anymore.

That is essentially correct, but I wish to take timeout from the global/local flood issue for a bit because I see another issue which is more pressing for me: Is not the God we serve as Christians one who is said to love us all while we were sinners? Romans 5:8 - "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Has God changed in character from the Old Testament to the New?

If God does not really love us, then there is no dilemma with God exercising His sovereign power to kill and wipe as he pleases. God after all created all of us, and as such we are His property, so He can do as He pleases with His creation. On the other hand if God really does love us and really is all-benevolent, then what the heck is going on? These are questions, and very good ones, non-Christians have in the past asked here, and you will see them on many skeptic sites. And the flood is perhaps used as their number one example for showing the coldness of the Judaic-Christian God.

Such skeptics will argue something like: "If God is all-loving, how could he kill off all of humanity? If God exists, and that is what God is like, then I want nothing to do with Him!" It is not that they doubt God's existence, but rather the character of God as presenting in the OT which they are repulsed by. In fact, I believe most Atheists/Agnostics do not argue against God's existence because they disbelieve God exists (even if they think they do), but rather because the God they perceive is one who does not care, one who is cold and unloving.

If we as Christians just go along with such a portrayal and essentially say, "Yeah well that is God, love Him or go to hell," we do not do a very good job apologetically in defending God on moral matters, and will likely loose some who are on the sidelines. No, we must produce a defense as Christians. A defense which not only reconciles the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New, but a defense which explains how God could be loving despite such contrary events in the OT.

Now regarding the flood, there is in fact evidence that God was actually saving humanity from themselves. People often fear a world wherein every country has nuclear weapons for it is believed we would wipe each other out. I believe this was actually the case in Noah's time, minus the nuclear weapons. There is scant Biblical evidence which suggests it was in fact the case that humanity in Noah's time had become entirely corrupt and violent. We read in Genesis 6:11-12:

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

What does the "filled with violence" mean? It would appear humanity had become extremely violent, and given how much their corruptness is stressed, it is I think very likely humanity would have in fact killed itself off if allowed to continue without intervention. God's sparing Noah and his wife and sons could be seen as an act of compassion in this light. If God truly desired death, He could have wiped out all of humanity, but he spared Noah out of grace. (Gen 6:8)

jenwat wrote:The way He chose to start over was to wipe ALL life away from the earth, except for Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark.

Do you really believe this so willingly and not blink an eye at the injustice this presents, especially to others who may not be Christian, to whom we are to give a reason for the hope that is in us? To whom we are to try be lights to? Humanity became corrupt so God kills all life everywhere. I can hear God now: "Drown all you animals who had never come into contact with humanity! Suffer for humanities sin! Bwahahahaha." Yes, the laughing was added for emphasis, but is this not what is essentially being projected to others with such a belief?

jenwat wrote:God made the choice to end all other life, and unfortunately the animals had to die also.

Unfortunate indeed. Oh well, but God loves all of His creation. Feel the emptiness in those words, especially to someone who may not be Christian?

jenwat wrote:When I said God had His reasons, I was talking about the animals having to die and nothing else. We cannot even begin to know the mind of God.

That is a nice way to respond to those criticising God's benevolence: "Unfortunately God has to kill every living animal and soul", but "God really does love you." Is it really good for us as Christians to just shrug away all responsibility in defending a loving and gracious God which we are to represent to others here on Earth? Here is a crucial point for me. If it comes to embracing a position which makes God look unloving, vengeful, uncaring towards His creation with a disregard and complacency towards their dying, then I am sorry but I can not bring myself to embrace such a position. It is even heretical in my opinion to embrace any position which makes God out to be this way.

On the other hand, I can provide a defense of God in the very much Scriptural local flood accounting, so why not opt for it? We know with the flood that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of humanity's wickedness. And RTB's website, which YEC organisations like AiG and ICR abhor for it damages their hip pocket

, in fact provides reasons for why animals would have also needed to be cleansed from the land. I quote:

The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.

A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific... the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for "creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.

The Waters of the Flood - http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... lood.shtml

In other words, any animals, land, and so forth which came into contact with humanity required destroying for they wreaked of defilement. Yet, God spared Noah, his sons and their wives out of grace.

We see today that animals, such as dogs, can be corrupted by their owner's sins. Owners can teach them to be violent, perform sexually deprived acts, and the like. As such it makes sense that any animals in contact with or influenced by humanity's wickedness would have needed destroying to entirely cleanse the wickedness of humanity from the earth. Does this not make much better sense why all living creatures throughout all the land were included in God's cleansing act? Does it not ring of greater consistency and truth than God destroying all life for some reason we can't think of? I will leave it up to you and the readers to each decide for themselves.

Kurieuo

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:58 am**

jenwat3 wrote:Oh, and Kurieuo,(spelling?) any time you want to give me a "workload", be my guest! I enjoy looking up scripture and coming up with answers. That's one reason why I love this board! I can get input from Christians and look up scriptures. For me this is a GREAT way to study my bible. Anyone who wants can give me a "workload" any day!

I know, and I did not mean it in a derogatory way (if it came across that way).

I often do this on purpose as people learn more if they go searching. For if someone is not going to look for answers, then they likely would not care to listen to what I have to say on the matter anyway. So there is no point in me writing if one is not prepared to look.

I have seen you on this board influenced by Scripture and good reasoning in other threads, which is one reason I took the time in my last post to respond to you. Even if we don't see eye to eye on this issue it is refreshing to see someone like yourself here.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:17 am**

Kurieuo wrote:
jenwat3 wrote:Yes. God created the flood because mankind had become so evil that God couldn't stand the sight of us anymore.
That is essentially correct, but I wish to take timeout from the global/local flood issue for a bit because I see another issue which is more pressing for me: Is not the God we serve as Christians one who is said to love us all while we were sinners? Romans 5:8 - "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Has God changed in character from the Old Testament to the New?

No, He hasn't. (Malachi 3:6: "For I am the Lord, I change NOT.")

K wrote:If God does not really love us, then there is no dilemma with God exercising His sovereign power to kill and wipe as he pleases. God after all created all of us, and as such we are His property, so He can do as He pleases with His creation. On the other hand if God really does love us and really is all-benevolent, then what the heck is going on? These are questions, and very good ones, non-Christians have in the past asked here, and you will see them on many skeptic sites. And the flood is perhaps used as their number one example for showing the coldness of the Judaic-Christian God.

Just another excuse to turn away and not believe in His goodness and love.

K wrote:Such skeptics will argue something like: "If God is all-loving, how could he kill off all of humanity? If God exists, and that is what God is like, then I want nothing to do with Him!" It is not that they doubt God's existence, but rather the character of God as presenting in the OT which they are repulsed by. In fact, I believe most Atheists/Agnostics do not argue against God's existence because they disbelieve God exists (even if they think they do), but rather because the God they perceive is one who does not care, one who is cold and unloving.

God gave everyone a choice here, on whether to live or die in the flood. It seems impossible that Noah was able to build an ark without anyone knowing what he was doing.

K wrote:If we as Christians just go along with such a portrayal and essentially say, "Yeah well that is God, love Him or go to hell," we do not do a very good job apologetically in defending God on moral matters, and will likely loose some who are on the sidelines. No, we must produce a defense as Christians. A defense which not only reconciles the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New, but a defense which explains how God could be loving despite such contrary events in the OT.

This may sound harsh, but God is love, and therefore could not abide in the evil that humans were doing. He knew He was not their God, so in his wisdom decided to begin again.

K wrote:Now regarding the flood, there is in fact evidence that God was actually saving humanity from themselves. People often fear a world wherein every country has nuclear weapons for it is believed we would wipe each other out. I believe this was actually the case in Noah's time, minus the nuclear weapons. There is scant Biblical evidence which suggests it was in fact the case that humanity in Noah's time had become entirely corrupt and violent. We read in Genesis 6:11-12:

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.
What does the "filled with violence" mean? It would appear humanity had become extremely violent, and given how much their corruptness is stressed, it is I think very likely humanity would have in fact killed itself off if allowed to continue without intervention. God's sparing Noah and his wife and sons could be seen as an act of compassion in this light. If God truly desired death, He could have wiped out all of humanity, but he spared Noah out of grace. (Gen 6:8)

jenwat wrote:The way He chose to start over was to wipe ALL life away from the earth, except for Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark.
Do you really believe this so willingly and not blink an eye at the injustice this presents, especially to others who may not be Christian, to whom we are to give a reason for the hope that is in us? To whom we are to try be lights to? Humanity became corrupt so God kills all life everywhere. I can hear God now: "Drown all you animals who had never come into contact with humanity! Suffer for humanities sin! Bwahahahaha." Yes, the laughing was added for emphasis, but is this not what is essentially being projected to others with such a belief?

Yes I believe this willingly! It may seem unjust to us as humans, but our ways are not God's ways.

K wrote:
jenwat wrote:God made the choice to end all other life, and unfortunately the animals had to die also.
Unfortunate indeed. Oh well, but God loves all of His creation. Feel the emptiness in those words, especially to someone who may not be Christian?

I understand the point here, but again, God did it out of love. Like you said, man was being saved from itself.

K wrote:
jenwat wrote:When I said God had His reasons, I was talking about the animals having to die and nothing else. We cannot even begin to know the mind of God.
That is a nice way to respond to those criticising God's benevolence: "Unfortunately God has to kill every living animal and soul", but "God really does love you." Is it really good for us as Christians to just shrug away all responsibility in defending a loving and gracious God which we are to represent to others here on Earth? Here is a crucial point for me. If it comes to embracing a position which makes God look unloving, vengeful, uncaring towards His creation with a disregard and complacency towards their dying, then I am sorry but I can not bring myself to embrace such a position. It is even heretical in my opinion to embrace any position which makes God out to be this way.

No we are responsible for that, although this is only one area. If we continue reading, we find many areas that speak of His love and mercy.

K wrote:On the other hand, I can provide a defense of God in the very much Scriptural local flood accounting, so why not opt for it? We know with the flood that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of humanity's wickedness. And RTB's website, which YEC organisations like AiG and ICR abhor for it damages their hip pocket , in fact provides reasons for why animals would have also needed to be cleansed from the land. I quote:

The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.

A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific... the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for "creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.

The Waters of the Flood - http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... lood.shtml
In other words, any animals, land, and so forth which came into contact with humanity required destroying for they wreaked of defilement. Yet, God spared Noah, his sons and their wives out of grace.

We see today that animals, such as dogs, can be corrupted by their owner's sins. Owners can teach them to be violent, perform sexually deprived acts, and the like. As such it makes sense that any animals in contact with or influenced by humanity's wickedness would have needed destroying to entirely cleanse the wickedness of humanity from the earth. Does this not make much better sense why all living creatures throughout all the land were included in God's cleansing act? Does it not ring of greater consistency and truth than God destroying all life for some reason we can't think of? I will leave it up to you and the readers to each decide for themselves.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:19 am**

Ah, another messed up post.

K, my answers are in [/quotes] in your post

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:19 am**

jenwat3 wrote:Ah, another messed up post. K, my answers are in [/quotes] in your post

Jen you can go back and edit your post to fix the quotes (it's very hard to read it as is). Let me know if you need any help.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:56 am**

Hi all,

The reasons for the flood and all other judgements in the Bible come from the creation. When God created free will He also allowed the possibility that His creation would take a wrong turn. When Eve and Adam took of the forbidden fruit they brought on death to the creation. Natural evil was established in the creation and more than likely decay started as well. In the flood God was wiping out the bad seed caused by the fallen angels who came to women on earth. In both of these cases the creation is responsible for the judgement. I tend to look at God as the Father and He is doing what is needed for correction. To place evil intent in God's behavior (which atheist do) is a misinterpretation of scripture.

I of course do not know God's reasoning on anything. He is beyond comprehension. But I see a repeating pattern in the creation where the creation drifts and is reset. Somewhat like a train that has derailed and is placed back on the track.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:57 am**

One first has to understand the weather of the earth before the flood. It did not rain. The ground had fountains that watered the ground. And indeed there were rivers. We know that mountains allow wind currents to push water rich air into cooler air which makes rain. So the atmosphere was probably different than we have today, I would suspect that the air retained it's warmth even at higher elevations. The mountains were probably lower as well. In looking at ancient geology most movement was vertical not horizontal like today. So this world does not into what we see today. I find this easy to believe. God fashioned nature and made it into His creation. The study of science is the study of God's creation. To use His creation as evidence that His Word is in error does not make sense to me. I first assume that it is I that is making the error of understanding.

I don't see the scientific or geologic backing for this. Seems to be the same as saying "God installed sprinklers to water all the plants". Not to mention you don't know where the water originated and when it all went. Today, we have the water cycle caused by heating, evaporation, and precipitation. If you had oceans and running water, there would definately we evaporation (by the Sun). It would only stop if the atmosphere reached 100% saturation, and then it would form clouds and fall as rain. How can God stop the water cycle and where's the evidence that there was no rain. There is rain on Venus, which has a canopy-like atmosphere. There is rain on Titan, which has a methane atmosphere. Mountains help produce rain but they aren't needed. We see rain over open plains and the ocean too. And how do you assume that the air does not cool as you do up in the atmosphere. Even on Venus, where the temps are hot enough to melt lead on the surface, the air cools as you go up because the atmposphere thins and the heats diffuses as it gets further from the source of conduction or reflection. Also, today we have BOTH horizontal and vertical movements of the plates. Horizontal movement is matched by subduction and uplift and erosion (all upwards or downwards).
I agree, if you have your own interpretation, I think your account is easy to believe. The main flaw is that nothing you said in that paragraph is actually testable or seen on the present day Earth.

The cause of the flood is supernatural so we would not expect to see evidence of the cause but we should see evidence of the event. The biggest events in geology are plate movements. The ancient plate movements are vertical. The plates below the oceans rose as the continents dropped. The ocean water pushed over the land knocking down most small landmasses. The angular momentum of the water made giant circular walls of water around the centers of some continents. Friction slowed the waters so eventually even the centers were covered. With a rising seafloor and dropping continents it is easy to calculate the requirements for a completely submerged earth.

How could this occurr during the flood and yet Noah and the Ark remained in one piece, the artropods and seeds remained on their rafts, and the fishes and marine inverts managed to survive? You can say this all happened but you have to tie it in with the rest of the story and it all falls apart. If an event like that occurred today (if it was energetically possible), nothing would survive on the planet. Not to mention that plates have never moved anything like this in recorded geologic history.

When the fountains of the deep shot their water to the surface the weather changed for the world. I do not know the mechanism for this change but I know it did happen

Do you?? I hate to use this line but... Were you there? You should have a detailed explantion of the mechanism then.

The fossil record shows a cambrian explosion. What we actually see is a world without rain and flood so no fossils would be created.

So, the plants (lush plant life) were watered by the fountains YET they were forbidden to flood. Water from ground sources is just as likely to cause a flash flood if it gathers in one spot long enough and then breaks out (a dam break).
The Cambrian Explosion occurred over a long geologic timescale (in my timeline) and it occurred when life had "figured out" all of the problems it had encountered in the Pre-Cambrian. These include the evolution of basic biological systems and also the major jump from unicellular to multicellular. Most Pre-Cambrian life (for billions of years) was unicellular. The Earth's environment and atmosphere was also molded into a form conducive for both land and sea life. The Cambrian Explosion shows the explosive radiation of life into optimal habitats that had become available.

Just for the record, I believe that is is likely that God planted the first cells on Earth and let evolution (that He created) carry on from there. I am not objected to God "helping" the process along and it removes the problem of biogenesis from our origins.

During the flood we would expect to find many fossils from the event. This is the cambrian level.

So the flood would only contain fossils of primitive multicellular animals? Why do we see no Cambrian species mixed with Devonian/Triassic/Jurassic/etc. And why is this all on the bottom?

There is evidence that the Nile ran all the way past Spain preflood. The evidence of the flood is found on all continents as sheared off landscape and a layer of round rock across vast plains. Mountain building started to happen right after the flood. Horizontal movement of the plates account for most of this.

I'm going to explain this all by accepted modern geology.
Well, the Mediterranean was dry prior to the melting of the Ice Caps after the Ice Age. In a situation eerily similar to the Black Sea and Mesopotamian Events, the Straits of Gibraltar broke open and let the Atlantic into the Mediterranean Basin. Any old river valleys (like the one you mention) would be covered.
I don't know what you mean by "sheared off". Maybe the continental margins being steep. This is influenced by the plate boundary (thin margin on active margins and thick on passive margins). The rocks, which I assume you mean the big monoliths on the Austrialian Outback, were caused by erosion of softer sed. rock around extrusions of harder rock. Over time, we are left with a knob of rounded rock over the surrounding landscape.
Yes, horizontal plate movement leades to mountain building. But mountains are still being built and others are eroding away. How do you explain the fact that mountain ranges aren't all the same age. Retreating Flood waters would erode the Appalacians, Rockies, and Himalayas the same way. But, conveneiently enough the mountain ranges date to ages that correspond to their level of wear. Coincidence, I think not.

There have been many local floods over the course of history. To declare that Noah's flood was local and then to read in Genesis that God promised not to flood the world again makes scripture false. If indeed Noah's flood was local and scripture promises not to do it again then we have a big problem. Are you saying that He promised not to do a local flood in that area? Are you saying He will not use the same mechanism? I know that when things start getting too complex I have strayed from reality. The correct analysis is more than likely the obvious one. There was a world wide flood.

If God destroyed New York City and one group of people survived on a boat, and God promised never to destroy manhind again, that wouldn't take the significance out of the promise. If the flood was confined to the Mesopotamian Area, that would have been a catastrophe never matched in human history. It would have killed off millions of people and animals. For God to promise not to do that again, He is telling the truth. He has not done anything like that again. So I don't see how a local flood goes against the Bible. The "world" to Noah was only the Middle East. Do they even mention half the known world in the Bible?

I don't think sea animals were included. For one they were already in the water, second, they couldn't have survived in the ark, and third, God said "All life on the FACE of the earth, meaning on the top of the earth. I don't think animals in the water apply here. Genesis 9:11. "Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth"

in the supposed catastropic global land shifts and phenomenon that YEC's say occurred, there would be no way that anything besides bacteria would survive in the oceans. Noah better bring some fish tanks.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:51 pm**

jenwat3 wrote:Ah, another messed up post. K, my answers are in [/quotes] in your post

I have tried cleaning it up for you. You just need to make sure you have the correct amount of opening quotes to closing quotes. Eg.,

Code: Select all

[quote="K"]K blah blah blah [quote="jenwat"]jenwat blah blah blah[/quote][/quote]

would come out as:

K wrote:K blah blah blah
jenwat wrote:jenwat blah blah blah

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:13 pm**

frankbaginski wrote:The reasons for the flood and all other judgements in the Bible come from the creation. When God created free will He also allowed the possibility that His creation would take a wrong turn. When Eve and Adam took of the forbidden fruit they brought on death to the creation. Natural evil was established in the creation and more than likely decay started as well.

I believe this makes God's character out to be rash, and this also attributes power to Satan which he does not have and negates the Scriptural belief that God created everything. Only in the YEC interpretation does the whole world - animals, plant life, etc - pay for Adam and Eve's sin, and does God's creation become changed so carnivorous activity and so forth enters into the world. Rather I believe God created this world to be temporal on purpose, and physical death, carnivorous animals, and the like is all a natural part of the world He created.

frank wrote:In the flood God was wiping out the bad seed caused by the fallen angels who came to women on earth.

However, God failed to wipe out these "fallen angels" if that was the reason for the flood. To quote a page at ecclesia.org:

In Genesis 6:4, "There were giants [nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that... the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Also in Numbers 13:33, "And there we saw the giants [nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants:" "Giants" is the same Hebrew word #5303. Why weren't they destroyed during the flood? (http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html)

Evidence for God from Science

Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood