Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote: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.

Audie -- you won't accept Biblical information and I don't especially follow your thought processes.
You are okay with a person thinking for themselves as long as they come to the same conclusion you do? That's pretty natural, actually.

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote: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.

Audie -- you won't accept Biblical information and I don't especially follow your thought processes.
You are okay with a person thinking for themselves as long as they come to the same conclusion you do? That's pretty natural, actually.

The thing about "biblical information" is a whole topic in itself. You are several points off compass, tho, in your assessment of me and what the information is.

Glacier geology is unfamiliar to you, so I would not expect you to get it all right away.

Glaciers are not one big piece of ice. The are shattered into millions of pieces. Ice floats. Ice melts. These are observable facts, not thought processes.

There is no mysterious thought process involved in being aware that the ice will melt off a pond in the spring, or that pipes will burst if they freeze.

That thing about "...as long as they come to the same conclusion.." is totally uncalled for.

I asked you to assume there was a flood, and then think what would actually happen.

If someone is not ok with thinking thru the implications of certain facts, that is understandable. To do so can result in the shattering of cherished illusions.

Audie -- I wasn't understanding what you were getting at. So -- you wanted me to assume that there was a flood and what would actually happen.

My comment was totally uncalled for, okay ......if you say so.

Is it a local flood or a Major area of flooding. Both have happened and have been in the news over the years. Major flooding occurred some years ago in the mid-West and messed up an area where Interstates connected. Long-range economic problems / land, homes destroyed. People die.

Flooding / land-slides / entire areas covered and buried 'forever'. Animals caught in the sudden land/ mud slides. And That is in part where the remains of animals / people enter the picture. Fossils to be found later.
People also get rescued and taken to dry areas. Sometimes they can go back and sometimes not. There is always a mess after the flood waters recede.
Bible does Not tell us what happened to the bodies of the drowned people. Or their homes or belongings.
Sunamies have taken place. I know that's not spelled right -- Huge tidal waves that hit after an underground earth quake. Massive damage Can take place and the waters recede and damage is observed and gradually cleaned up.
So - put this on a global level. The globe is round -- gravity keeps things from floating out into space. Water can only go Up and some things can float on the top of the waters and lots of more permanent structures become dangerous debris under water. The flood in Genesis -- the water ceased after 120 days -- depending on the geographical location -- the water would freeze and form floating ice. It would bob up and down in the water or sit stationery. But the flood waters gradually receded and would eventually melt. Unless a person is in the arctic / antarctic regions of the world. Bible says it was covering the face of the earth. Purposely destroying Every living thing except that which was in the ark.
In a global flood -- there would be No place for people To run to -- except for caves or up sides of the hills. The people didn't know how long it would rain because they hadn't really paid any attention to Noah. (My speculation) But if they ran to caves for shelter, someday, someone would find 'fossils' / remains of people huddled together.
So -- is This what you were wanting me to think through to?
I'm actually going to see what I can find on Google, too.

Audie
Just started some researching -- found an article -- http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosarus/mammoth.html.

"The Ice Age, the Bible, and the Wooly Mammoth Creation vs. evolution flood "

Printed it out. 5 pages.

Audie -- the article won't print Because it's supposed to be http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mammoth.html

Another article is Where Does the Ice Age Fit? / Answers in Genesis
http://answersingenesis.org/environment ... e-age-fit/

this one is a much more thorough article. And I've also printed it out.

She's asking you to think specifically about what would happen to glaciers that were already in existence in the case of a global flood. They would float away and melt. The point being that very ancient glaciers act as strong evidence against a global flood. The only way forward is to somehow argue that the glaciers post-date the flood, which is what YECs typically try to do, like in this article: https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... e-age-fit/

Point is that ACB's position that the glaciers are old and the flood was recent just cannot be maintained.

crochet1949 wrote:r.
So -- is This what you were wanting me to think through to?
.

No, actually, that is not it at all.

Just the polar ice.That it the topic, and how it could be there if there were a flood.

We have this great thickness of ice, many tens of thousands of years old.

Any disagreement on that?

IF you covered it with water-for lo, the Bible says all went under- then
it would float.

Correct?

As the glacier is already shattered into millions of pieces, it would break apart very quickly once it floated.

Look at this vid of a small mountain glacier. Note how the ice is cracked into so many small pieces, how it comes apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s5-IvHVDqg

Any doubt of that?

The ocean is motion, the more so in the wildly unstable condition of the purported flood.

Agreed?

So the ice drifts away, melting as it goes.

Logical? Obvious?

The ice is still there. Has been for a very long time.



That is what I hoped you would think thru.

crochet1949 wrote:Audie
Just started some researching -- found an article -- http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosarus/mammoth.html.

"The Ice Age, the Bible, and the Wooly Mammoth Creation vs. evolution flood "

Printed it out. 5 pages.

Im sorry C, but that is just a garbage woo woo site.

According to the theory of evolution, the ice age started about 2 million years ago and ended about 11,000 years ago. They place a few warm interglacial periods within this time, but they were relatively short


As soon as I start reading, I find ignorant nonsense. The
Theory of Evolution has nothing (zero) "0" to do with the ice age, or with historical geology. Anyone who'd write such a sentence has not a clue what he is talking about.

IF a person wants to learn something about science, you go to an appropriate source. Same with mechanical engineering, or maybe heart surgery.

Jac3510 wrote:She's asking you to think specifically about what would happen to glaciers that were already in existence in the case of a global flood. They would float away and melt. The point being that very ancient glaciers act as strong evidence against a global flood. The only way forward is to somehow argue that the glaciers post-date the flood, which is what YECs typically try to do, like in this article: https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... e-age-fit/

Point is that ACB's position that the glaciers are old and the flood was recent just cannot be maintained.

Trying to maintain it with made up nonsense like that 9 degrees C means the ice is frozen solid to bedrock, or that it could withstand the stresses from being underwater is just crazy talk. The ice absolutely could not freeze down in any case; glaciers move. Billions of tons of ice make a lot of pressure, its not gonna stick down. (you can see them move, in a speeded up film)

We note that ab called it a "set up" when he saw he was getting trapped, and ran away. He was getting close to an epiphany, but it was too much for him.

The other idea he offered (made up) was that the ice lifted up, but just spun around in the circumpolar current, then set back down as the water receded.

Id be happy to be faced with a real challenge to what I think. C profoundly misreads me thinking I only like it when people think as I do.

I wish someone would come up with a serious challenge to evolution or deep time. It would be one of, if not the most interesting things I ever heard.

A serious minded challenge to what I said about the glaciers disproving a flood would likewise be most welcome. "stick down, spin around" aint it.

Evolution has some profound problems - certainly if one considers it to be a Godless process. But that's another argument.

As for the issue of the flood, per those who believe in a very young (thousands of years old) earth, is the geologic and fossil evidences. IF man had been created within a literal week along with the animals, there is something seriously wrong with the fossil layers. And that is, that as the layers of rocks and fossils go lower, the same sorts of animal fossils are found. And the deeper you go - particularly really deep - you see only VERY simple types of animals. And what you do not see is all of these animals and evidences of man together, in the same layers. And upon reaching the Cambrian layers, there is this massive explosion of far more advanced creatures and mammals. So, obviously, if the earth is only thousands of years old, the fossils, from simple life forms to more advanced ones, to the age of mammals, should ALL BE FOUND TOGETHER IN THE VERY SAME LAYERS! But they are not - there is distinct separation. And NO flood could have done THAT!

So, if one believes in a very young planet earth, they must explain why the fossils are sorted into layers as they are, AND why they do not show a grand mixture in ALL layers, especially as they grow progressively deeper. I thought of this as I was looking at a book I discovered on my bookshelf - about the Grand Canyon.

This week, discovery of perhaps the oldest-known fossils were announced: http://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-s ... -years-old

Phil, I don't think we should say so unqualified that "no flood" could ever explain the stratification of fossils. https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... long-ages/

Audie wrote:Trying to maintain it with made up nonsense like that 9 degrees C means the ice is frozen solid to bedrock, or that it could withstand the stresses from being underwater is just crazy talk. The ice absolutely could not freeze down in any case; glaciers move. Billions of tons of ice make a lot of pressure, its not gonna stick down. (you can see them move, in a speeded up film)

We note that ab called it a "set up" when he saw he was getting trapped, and ran away. He was getting close to an epiphany, but it was too much for him.

The other idea he offered (made up) was that the ice lifted up, but just spun around in the circumpolar current, then set back down as the water receded.

Id be happy to be faced with a real challenge to what I think. C profoundly misreads me thinking I only like it when people think as I do.

I wish someone would come up with a serious challenge to evolution or deep time. It would be one of, if not the most interesting things I ever heard.

A serious minded challenge to what I said about the glaciers disproving a flood would likewise be most welcome. "stick down, spin around" aint it.

I think you hit the nail on the head, and thus my ban-worthy appeal to stop insulting the faith with such ridiculous claims. I think it's evident from what little I know that either 1) there was no global flood of any kind to worry about with glaciers or 2) the glaciers we see are the result of a global flood. I understand that you would strongly argue against the second option, and I'm not trying to defend it here. I'm simply saying that, with respect to evidence glaciers provides, that's the only two positions. And in the interest of intellectual honesty, that's the position that young earth creationists have in fact taken. YECs could well be wrong on a range of scientific issues related to the age of the earth, and perhaps glacial evidence itself is sufficient to show that the earth is much older than YECs propose (that is, that a global flood cannot account for glaciers and their related topographical effects and be consistent with all evidence). But regardess of all that, YECs do recognize that if you have glaciers, you can't have a global flood that post-dates them. That's absolutely indefensible, and while I wish I could offer you an argument against deep time, all I can say with all honesty is that, at this point, I can't do so without getting into source wars that I don't understand--not from science, anyway. Perhaps some people here can, or perhaps someone will join who can, or perhaps I'll be able to one of these days. But that day isn't today. As such, my only hopes are: 1) to continue to point out and reject arguments that I do understand that are obviously indefensible (there is nothing virtuous in defending truth with lies); and 2) that to the extent you and others (perhaps me included) can talk about the veracity of the Chrsitain faith can do so less on the basis of deep time or creation models and rather on those evidences upon which we (I) do rest our faith.

Uh, jac, seriously? AIG?

Audie --sorry you feel that I profoundly misread you. Not intentional.
I've heard the term 'deep time' -- but don't know what it is.

It's just kind of hard to 'disprove' something to a person who is 'dead set' in their position. It's more -- what kind of information would constitute a serious minded challenge. I've tried that approach with people on a different Forum and the information I found, even secular, just didn't 'do it'.

I've never tried to Disprove evolution -- many times, just using common sense shows Otherwise.

I printed the article so that we could go over it /point by point and discuss what it says. I printed out 10 pages.

All the recent posts trying to get Audie on your side, just tossed away in an instant, by one AIG link.

The implications of a global flood are ---- Why did God Do it in the 1st place. According to Genesis.