Evidence for God from Science

Gman your #2 post (which I didn't quote because of space) is a direct copy from talkorigins. I am just going to link the direct rebuttal from trueorigin.org

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

I will post my opinions later. I have a meeting to attend for a few hours. Thanks

Byblos wrote:Why do you see it as an empty promise? I see it as an affirmation of such. More importantly though, your point escapes me.

It's empty because God is not capable of flooding the whole earth (according to Ps 104). Therefore, God telling Noah not to worry about Him ever destroying the world ever again is silly. It would be like a father leaving on a month long business trip and saying to his child on the way out the door, "Now, you do what Mommy says, and Daddy won't give you a spanking while he's gone!"

In other words, God's "promise" in Genesis 9 doesn't protect against any threat and thus is meaningless.

Yes Byblos

And God also planted the cedars of Lebanon by hand v16
The sun rises as opposed to the earth rotating v22
The earth doesn't move through space and exist in the gravitational pull of the sun, but is set upon foundations v5

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:Why do you see it as an empty promise? I see it as an affirmation of such. More importantly though, your point escapes me.

It's empty because God is not capable of flooding the whole earth (according to Ps 104). Therefore, God telling Noah not to worry about Him ever destroying the world ever again is silly. It would be like a father leaving on a month long business trip and saying to his child on the way out the door, "Now, you do what Mommy says, and Daddy won't give you a spanking while he's gone!"

In other words, God's "promise" in Genesis 9 doesn't protect against any threat and thus is meaningless.

I still fail to see your point. How is that relevant to the local vs global flood? Besides, how could Genesis hold a meaningless promise as compared to Ps 104? Which came first?

jlay wrote:Yes Byblos

And God also planted the cedars of Lebanon by hand v16

I've stood in their shadows and I can attest the fingerprint of God is all over them.

jlay wrote:The sun rises as opposed to the earth rotating v22
The earth doesn't move through space and exist in the gravitational pull of the sun, but is set upon foundations v5

I swear I don't know what is going on with me today. I am completely and hopelessly dense. Please forgive me but I truly do not see the meaning of this. I'm sure you're not suggesting these are contradictions but I fail to see the connection.

Byblos,

Sorry to throw you the curve ball. I am merely pointing out (sarcasticly) the poetry of the psalm and that it is not a literal indicator of whether God would or wouldn't flood the earth.

jlay wrote:Byblos,

Sorry to throw you the curve ball. I am merely pointing out (sarcasticly) the poetry of the psalm and that it is not a literal indicator of whether God would or wouldn't flood the earth.

That much I gathered (the sarcasm part) but my question is why. I never referred to Ps 104 other than to respond to Jac's post. My original reference was to Gen 9:11 and the fact that God promised never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood. Someone suggested and you agreed that if it were a local flood then God is a liar because people still die in local floods today. I simply pointed out the fact that what we believe to have been a geographically local flood in Genesis did in fact result in ALL life being cut off save for a few and their pets. By analogy, if all life were to be cut off today, it would require a global flood to do so because of the spread of humanity over all of the earth. God's promise in Gen 9:11 or even in Ps 104 notwithstanding.

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:Why do you see it as an empty promise? I see it as an affirmation of such. More importantly though, your point escapes me.

It's empty because God is not capable of flooding the whole earth (according to Ps 104). Therefore, God telling Noah not to worry about Him ever destroying the world ever again is silly. It would be like a father leaving on a month long business trip and saying to his child on the way out the door, "Now, you do what Mommy says, and Daddy won't give you a spanking while he's gone!"

In other words, God's "promise" in Genesis 9 doesn't protect against any threat and thus is meaningless.

I still fail to see your point. How is that relevant to the local vs global flood? Besides, how could Genesis hold a meaningless promise as compared to Ps 104? Which came first?

I was responding to your counter-point in which you said:

"It would require a global flood today to wipe off humanity. It only required a local flood then to do the same."

My ultimate point is that this answer is self-contradictory in the local-flood model. God promises not to destroy all of humanity by a flood again, but as it turns out, that isn't a problem, because that would require a global flood, which never happened, nor ever COULD happen. The promise is empty. It's utterly meaningless. It would be like me assuring Bill Gates that I'm not going to buy out Microsoft. I'm sure he isn't exactly worried about that, because he knows I don't have that kind of cash under my couch.

That is where Ps 104 comes in. I don't take it to be a creation psalm at all, but Rich, and many here at this site, do. The fact that it comes later proves it can have no relevance to the local/global question, as you pointed out in your question to me. That's why I repeatedly say that Ps 104 has NO BEARING on the question and cannot be used to prove a local flood as it frequently is in discussions here. But further, even if you DO take it as relevant, you come to the problem I've been pointing out here. God is, in effect, promising Noah He won't do something that He can't do. So He tells Noah in Gen 9 that He won't, and then tells David in Ps 104 that He can't. Makes the promise to Noah a bit on the silly, if not deceptive, side, because the promise only has meaning if it abates a real potential threat. But the theology here has been that God comes along in Ps 104 and says, "Oh, btw -- that promise I made back in Gen 9, guess what . . . I couldn't have done it even if I wanted to! Of course, Noah didn't know that at the time, but I figured it'd be a good time for Me to tell you now."

You rightly point out that a flood to kill humanity would require a global flood. The fact that God promises that it won't happen again presumes the possibility of a global flood, but the possibility of a global flood contradicts the OEC interpretation of Ps 104, which is used (against all good hermeneutics) to support the local flood. So my point, Byblos, is that the local flood model, with reference to universal judgment and Psalm 104, is rather self-contradictory and just downright silly.

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:Why do you see it as an empty promise? I see it as an affirmation of such. More importantly though, your point escapes me.

It's empty because God is not capable of flooding the whole earth (according to Ps 104). Therefore, God telling Noah not to worry about Him ever destroying the world ever again is silly. It would be like a father leaving on a month long business trip and saying to his child on the way out the door, "Now, you do what Mommy says, and Daddy won't give you a spanking while he's gone!"

In other words, God's "promise" in Genesis 9 doesn't protect against any threat and thus is meaningless.

I still fail to see your point. How is that relevant to the local vs global flood? Besides, how could Genesis hold a meaningless promise as compared to Ps 104? Which came first?

I was responding to your counter-point in which you said:

"It would require a global flood today to wipe off humanity. It only required a local flood then to do the same."

My ultimate point is that this answer is self-contradictory in the local-flood model. God promises not to destroy all of humanity by a flood again, but as it turns out, that isn't a problem, because that would require a global flood, which never happened, nor ever COULD happen. The promise is empty. It's utterly meaningless. It would be like me assuring Bill Gates that I'm not going to buy out Microsoft. I'm sure he isn't exactly worried about that, because he knows I don't have that kind of cash under my couch.

That is where Ps 104 comes in. I don't take it to be a creation psalm at all, but Rich, and many here at this site, do. The fact that it comes later proves it can have no relevance to the local/global question, as you pointed out in your question to me. That's why I repeatedly say that Ps 104 has NO BEARING on the question and cannot be used to prove a local flood as it frequently is in discussions here. But further, even if you DO take it as relevant, you come to the problem I've been pointing out here. God is, in effect, promising Noah He won't do something that He can't do. So He tells Noah in Gen 9 that He won't, and then tells David in Ps 104 that He can't. Makes the promise to Noah a bit on the silly, if not deceptive, side, because the promise only has meaning if it abates a real potential threat. But the theology here has been that God comes along in Ps 104 and says, "Oh, btw -- that promise I made back in Gen 9, guess what . . . I couldn't have done it even if I wanted to! Of course, Noah didn't know that at the time, but I figured it'd be a good time for Me to tell you now."

You rightly point out that a flood to kill humanity would require a global flood. The fact that God promises that it won't happen again presumes the possibility of a global flood, but the possibility of a global flood contradicts the OEC interpretation of Ps 104, which is used (against all good hermeneutics) to support the local flood. So my point, Byblos, is that the local flood model, with reference to universal judgment and Psalm 104, is rather self-contradictory and just downright silly.

Thank you Jac. Finally I understand the connection with Ps 104. First, I never even gave Ps 104 a second thought as to whether or not it pertains to a local vs global flood. So this entire line of thinking, while applicable IF Ps 104 were to be used in support of a local flood, does not pertain to my argument because I do no such thing (out of ignorance, for now).

What I am stating (and the point I am trying to make to Jlay) is this: to say because God promised never again to use a flood to kill all of humanity is somehow an indication that the Genesis flood was global is false simply because a local flood in Genesis does not preclude the cutting off of ALL of humanity. In other words, if you believe that all of humanity was cut off in a local flood in genesis (and I certainly do), then God's promise would necessarily eliminate the possibility of a global flood today because that's what it would take to cut off all of humanity. I hope this clears up the fact that your counter-argument is baseless in this particular case.

Byblos,

My point is what Jac just explained.

jlay wrote:Byblos,

My point is what Jac just explained.

No J, that wasn't your initial point to which I replied. It was this:

Daluzinal said this:

Daluzinal wrote:It had to be a global flood because God said he would not judge the world again like that. As we look at the world today there are local floods.

To which you commented:

jlay wrote:Daluzinal

Bingo!!

To which I replied:

Byblos wrote:It would require a global flood today to wipe off humanity. It only required a local flood then to do the same.

Nowhere was Ps 104 mentioned until Jac's next post. Let's leave Ps 104 out of it for a moment. Daluzinal's statement, to which you agreed, makes no sense. God's promise in Gen 9:11 was that never again ALL of humanity will be cut off by a flood. How does that preclude the Genesis flood from being local, knowing that all of humanity was in fact cut off, and also knowing that it would take a global flood today to do the same?

As for Ps 104, although that was not my point at all, I will indulge. I'm sorry but I do not see the logic in taking Ps 104, written an unknown number of years after Genesis, and retrofitting it to a Genesis promise. God could very well have cut off all of humanity a second time via a local flood shortly after the first one. Would that have negated the possibility of a global flood some years later when Ps 104 was penned? I don't think so. Ps 104 is nothing more than an affirmation of the promise God made in Gen 9:11. To see it any other way or as supporting or refuting either a local or global flood is a stretch at best.

I was responding to Jacs mention of that chapter. That is why I sited verses from that chapter.

I jumped into the conversation assuming this was discussed earlier.

I apologize.


I'll address the other later.

I think the local flood vs. global flood debate is extremely interesting, mostly because I have not chosen a side. A local flood seems more "possible", but keep in mind we are dealing with a God that can reproduce food and rise from the dead. I also always thought that a global flood was a better explanation for fossils and features like the Grand Canyon. How does the local flood hypothesis fit in with things like that?

Depends on the creation model. A progressive creation local flood model might postulate that dinasours had already become extinct before the flood ever occurred so there is no conflict.

I meant fossils in general. If a cat were to die in a field today, it wouldn't fossilize. I always thought that the fossils in rock were possible because of the Floodwaters.