Evidence for God from Science

For_Narniaaa wrote: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.

Just be aware that only a tiny percentage of animals or dinosaurs ever fossilize. It happens usually when they fall into sinkholes or swampy water. There are certainly not millions of these dinosaurs found in rocks layers, contrary to YEC beliefs, and no humans are ever found in the same strata...

Does the Flood necessarily imply that ALL would have fossilized? Because I read on a creationist site about a whale fossil found that encompassed several strata...how is that possible outside of the Flood?

I'm just confused because both viewpoints seem to make sense to me...

Here is something very interesting. It is totally secualr in nature. It is amazing to me that science will offer many theories as to why a whale would end up hundreds of miles in-land. More interesting is that this whale is dated at less than 12.5k years old. That means something dramatic, and catostrophic happened less than 12,500 years ago, that resulted in the eastern sea board of the united states being submerged under water.

http://www.uvm.edu/whale/Introduction.html

secular theories.
1. Ancient river.
Problem: no evidence of river bed. whales are not known to swim up river streams, particularly the distance required.

2. Ice Age shelf depressed the continent, creating a sea. This is the most popular theory. But this can also work hand in hand with a global flood. Either way, it is obvious that science beleives that a mere 10k years ago, the face of the earth was a radically different place.

3. Meteor: Seriously. They propose that a meteor struck the ocean and blew this whale hundreds of miles inland.
Problem: Skeleton is intact and doesn't exhibit signs of trauma that would result from explosive forces or impacting the ground after flying hundreds of miles through the air.

The Ice Age thing might also fit with Day-Age/Progressive Creationism, too.

I also wonder about the rainbow. If it was a promise to not flood the whole earth again, why would the whole world see it if the Flood had been local? Wouldn't just the Middle East see rainbows?

Isn't it funny that folks have absolutely no trouble believing that ice (frozen water) covered much of the earth and was miles thick in places. MILES! But a global flood? Prepostorous.
In fact they state that the ice was so thick and heavy that it lowered the continent's enough that the sea rushed in and flooded much of what is not above sea level. However, I never understood how they reconcile that with lower ocean levels. They actually say that more land was exposed because ocean levels were hundreds of feet lower than they are today. So much so, that you could walk from the British Isle to France and from Russia to Alaska

For_Narnia


This is an excellent source for your questions.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wonderly2006.pdf

If it directs you to the beginning, then click onchapter seven, concerning the "ecoloical zoning" hypothesis of fossil deposition.

For_Narniaaa wrote:Does the Flood necessarily imply that ALL would have fossilized? Because I read on a creationist site about a whale fossil found that encompassed several strata...how is that possible outside of the Flood?

I'm just confused because both viewpoints seem to make sense to me...

Zoegirl's article addresses this pretty well I thought...

"Because of these facts it is logical to conclude that the lompoc diatom beds were deposited naturally on the ocean floor, and that sometime before the period of tectonic activity which finally raised them to an elevation above sea level, the earthquakes in that area triggered at least one large sediment slide and flow which overwhelmed and buried the animals that were down-slope from where the slide began. As pointed out in the early parts of this section on rapid burial. We now know of large sediment flows in various parts of the world which apparently had all of the characteristics necessary for overwhelming and burying both fish and large marine animals. Henry Morris's statements concerning the fossilization of so many fish in the diatomaceous sediments near lompoc, California, shows how desperately he needs to acquire a knowledge of natural burial events (Morris. 1974.97-98)."

For_Narniaaa wrote:The Ice Age thing might also fit with Day-Age/Progressive Creationism, too.

I also wonder about the rainbow. If it was a promise to not flood the whole earth again, why would the whole world see it if the Flood had been local? Wouldn't just the Middle East see rainbows?

The Bible makes no claim that the rainbow and the rain that caused it had never been seen on the earth before... Only that it was a sign.

Hello I am new here and haven't read all of the posts. The basic problem with the local flood v global flood sides is this. Old Earthers reject a global flood because they think it proves that the Earth is young and young Earthers support a global flood because they think it supports a young Earth.
However if there was a global flood over 4 thousand years ago this only proves when the Earth and animals were destroyed it doesn't prove when they were created. After all if young Earthers think that the world and animals existed for 1600 years before the flood why couldn't they have existed longer?
As an example the ancient city of Pompeii was destroyed in AD 79, this proves Pompeii was destroyed nearly 2 thousand years ago, however how long did Pompeii exist before it was destroyed? The town was founded around the 7th-6th century BC.

ROBE wrote:Hello I am new here and haven't read all of the posts. The basic problem with the local flood v global flood sides is this. Old Earthers reject a global flood because they think it proves that the Earth is young and young Earthers support a global flood because they think it supports a young Earth.

Welcome Robe.

Actually this was not true in my case, that is, I did/do not reject a global flood because I think it proves that the Earth is young. Mainly because it was not immediately obvious to me that my position on the flood could contradict my position on the creation days.

I originally took on a Day-Age perspective of Genesis 1 while still retaining belief in a global flood. Scripture just seemed so clear that a global flood was intended. However, further examination of Scripture and reasoning from local-flood proponents (including GodandScience.org) led me to believe a local flood was the best fit.

With all this talk about Noah's flood and the new movie, I thought I'd give my "Local Flood vs Global Flood" post a boost..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmj5mhDwJQ[/youtube]

Gman wrote:With all this talk about Noah's flood and the new movie, I thought I'd give my "Local Flood vs Global Flood" post a boost..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmj5mhDwJQ[/youtube]

That trailer makes the movie appear almost biblical. Is it deceiving?

Kinda makes you wonder why God didn't just take Noah and his family up to heaven at that time. Why would God destroy all of mankind do to their sin, then allow a few sinful natured men to repopulate the planet all over again; knowing it is just a matter of time before the entire planet is infested with sin again?

Ken

Kenny wrote:Kinda makes you wonder why God didn't just take Noah and his family up to heaven at that time. Why would God destroy all of mankind do to their sin, then allow a few sinful natured men to repopulate the planet all over again; knowing it is just a matter of time before the entire planet is infested with sin again?

Ken

My personal belief on that is that G-d has to intervene at certain points in time and is forced to destroy life in order to preserve life, otherwise if left alone we would destroy ourselves entirely. We are about to do this ourselves right now and we have the nuclear bombs to do it. Why? Because we ultimately don't respect one another contrary to what the Bible commands us to do..

Gman wrote:

Kenny wrote:Kinda makes you wonder why God didn't just take Noah and his family up to heaven at that time. Why would God destroy all of mankind do to their sin, then allow a few sinful natured men to repopulate the planet all over again; knowing it is just a matter of time before the entire planet is infested with sin again?

Ken

My personal belief on that is that G-d has to intervene at certain points in time and is forced to destroy life in order to preserve life, otherwise if left alone we would destroy ourselves entirely. We are about to do this ourselves right now and we have the nuclear bombs to do it. Why? Because we ultimately don't respect one another contrary to what the Bible commands us to do..

So do you think if God hadn't sent the flood to kill all of mankind (except Noah and family) Man kind would have destroyed himself?

Ken