Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   glaciers and the flood
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 61 of 96 (181122)
01-27-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by roxrkool
01-26-2005 9:26 PM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
I dont know which I am looking most @
For me, I do not know which pic I am looking MORE at. That is prerequisite to reading much in the Croizat method. I might have misplaced the notion of the creationary view of the ice aga in this part so for me I get stuck somewhere near INNSBRUCK. This might be only due to my lack of knowledge of the area so perhaps a European has an opninion. So when I say I am confused this is indeed a limit in my thinking and hopeing that some other creationist has already written something that will turn this light bulb on in my mind’s eye. I can say that the word why I use IS NOT anything political as just came up today on NPR when the former gov of NJ was interviewed and the question was put if religion had anything to do with science ( climate change study, stem cells, teaching evolution). The dialog there answered with somewhat of a why but the governor was clear to keep science out of it. The why I referred to does have some play in the same word philosophy only but is academic at the point or place where one might think the difference of good will and free will. But again making any freedom change a group willing goodly into freeness would NOT be by legislation nor by EVC fiat nor need it occur to necessarily have science progress. The issue probably arises only because students seem to have lost the ability to think to (or from) physio-theology. So if I had to guess why I could not say it would be because I would like to read a creationist on the ice — age have me think FROM physcio theology not only to ethical theology. It might be that I just didn’t look hard enough.
So to rephrase — I was suggesting that the creationist research on the ice age is in a place where evolutionist research needs to be if it is ever to try to get beyond the NZ’s approach to Croizat’s methodical investigation. So I don’t see a scientific reason against creationist work as long as noncreationscience does not try to explicate with more tools continuity of simulations. But for the poltical type thought on NPR that is likely causing an inhibition of society moving in this direction. And I have experienced in the past that the philosophy that prevents this is the feeling that Jacob junk yard mentality IS the way that biological change occurred. I know this is not the case by reading Agassiz on the ice berg but I would need to show Hutchinson mistaken as to beetles first and THAT latter not the former is what also has me bogged down culturally as to what I might by my own merits be able to accomplish.
It is some what hard to read in the pictures where I noted in yellow.
Croizat had said,
quote:
It would seem to be conclusively clear that so far as our analysis has progressed we have not met evidence speaking for the "Ice Ages" in quality of a momentous biogeographic factor.
I really only tried to say the same thing in my own words. Evos would disagree with this in general, I would suspect. There is no doubt the creationary veiw DID "speak" for the ice age and this would be taken by some evo as NOT a good thing. I read it the other way around, but before I can ACTUALLY get all the way around this text I need to see more in his pictures. There may be a difference between us, but he died the year before I got to Cornell. I would like to see an abreviated version of panbiogeography come out and if the creationary view of the ice age spurs us onto this, I say, all for the better! Thus without this qualitative "factor" I figured we still had his pre-Darlington ptolemic biogeography despite SOME quantification by New Zelanders conta AMNH. If Gibbs' function minimzation was the cause of the meausre then one might proceed without the creation account but so far I see more c than e activity despite the opposite being the case here in this thread so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by roxrkool, posted 01-26-2005 9:26 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2005 4:03 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 96 (181130)
01-27-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Brad McFall
01-27-2005 3:38 PM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
Couldn't do without dessert I see..
Or was that the main course?
quote:
For me, I do not know which pic I am looking MORE at.
I think you are looking at all of them.. at the same time.. upside-down.. with colors inverted.
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-27-2005 16:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Brad McFall, posted 01-27-2005 3:38 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 63 of 96 (181159)
01-27-2005 5:37 PM


Bump/Test
Brad's message 63 not showing up - Message 62 is/was last displayed.
This should be message 64.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 01-28-2005 9:31 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 64 of 96 (181313)
01-28-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Adminnemooseus
01-27-2005 5:37 PM


Re: Bump/Test
TC edited his post at about the same time I sent. I only had said that he was correct, that there was *all^ to this post. I myself had to do a system restart so someone else is probably tryin to "listen" in or I am just as paranoid as my more computer literate brother is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-27-2005 5:37 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 96 (187186)
02-21-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Joe Meert
01-25-2005 10:30 PM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
quote:
The problem is that no one is willing to be pinned down on the timing of the flood and the evidence for the flood. If it occurred in the Precambrian (ala Setterfield and a few others), then the Phanerozoic geologic record (especially the Pleistocene) would be fairly far removed from the ravages of the flood (even using a 10000 year interval).
Come on, Joe, you know full well that flood catastrophists utterly reject all uniformitarian dating of the geologic record as irrelevant to their model. So your argument here is irrelevant to a catastrophic flood model.
The majority of flood catastrophists place most of the geologic record as having been placed during the flood cataclysm. They are not going to try to put the flood somewhere "within" some small part geologic record. So the arguments should be concerned with if the strata can be emplaced in a catastrophic environment.
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Joe Meert, posted 01-25-2005 10:30 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Joe Meert, posted 02-23-2005 8:13 AM allenroyboy has replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 96 (187190)
02-21-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Bill Birkeland
10-18-2003 12:46 PM


quote:
1) What is the flood model for glaciation?
(snip)
In case of item 1, the flood model for glaciation, Young Earth creationists have an extreme problem in that their model postulates a single glacial episode. However, geologists, who have studied glacial deposits in detail, have found an abundance of evidence that demonstrates there have been multiple glaciations, 10 to 12. This evidence is summarized by books such as Sibrava et al. (1986). The glacial sediments directly deposited by glaciers and ice sheets are called glacial tills or, for short, "till". These glacial episodes were each separated by periods of time long enough for the deep weathering of the previous glacial tills; formation of well-developed soils, called "paleosols" when buried, in the tills; and the erosion of valleys in the glacial tills.
Oard addresses, in detail, multiple glacial episodes in his book. He concludes that:
1) proposed uniformitarian causes for a single ice age are hoplessly inadequate, even more so for multiple ice ages.
2) The glacial-interglacial fringe depositional sequences simply represent multiple regression and surges of a single ice age.
3) High erosion along the fringes of the glaciers is due to high precipitation and melt water as the glaciers regress. Oard's model proposes a "warm" global environment.
I recommend reading Oard's book first and then criticizing his model. If Oard's model is so bad, it should be a piece of cake to rip it appart. But, creationay cataclysmists won't take you seriously unless you actually read Oard's detailed model.
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Bill Birkeland, posted 10-18-2003 12:46 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 02-21-2005 2:09 PM allenroyboy has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 67 of 96 (187235)
02-21-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by allenroyboy
02-21-2005 10:37 AM


I recommend reading Oard's book first and then criticizing his model. If Oard's model is so bad, it should be a piece of cake to rip it appart. But, creationay cataclysmists won't take you seriously unless you actually read Oard's detailed model.
Sorry, no can do. I can't possibly keep up with the reading that I should be doing. Maybe you could elaborate on a few points?
Oard addresses, in detail, multiple glacial episodes in his book. He concludes that:
1) proposed uniformitarian causes for a single ice age are hoplessly inadequate, even more so for multiple ice ages.
Why is that?
2) The glacial-interglacial fringe depositional sequences simply represent multiple regression and surges of a single ice age.
Well, I suppose if we go far enough north, or south, the ice age is still with us. So then, there must be some connection of the current ice age with the flood, or at least with Oard's model?
3) High erosion along the fringes of the glaciers is due to high precipitation and melt water as the glaciers regress. Oard's model proposes a "warm" global environment.
Actually, I'm not sure this is the case. If so, shouldn't we see more evidence of erosion across northern Ohio, etc.? Are we confusing alpine glaciation with continental glaciation here?
(Just trying to get back into this thread here. Seems kind of old and dusty.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by allenroyboy, posted 02-21-2005 10:37 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 68 of 96 (187710)
02-23-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by allenroyboy
02-21-2005 10:08 AM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
quote:
Come on, Joe, you know full well that flood catastrophists utterly reject all uniformitarian dating of the geologic record as irrelevant to their model. So your argument here is irrelevant to a catastrophic flood model.
JM: C'mon Roy that's a cop-out and you know it. If 'most' of the geologic record was deposited as a result of the flood, then some of it was not. That means that it should be reasonable to ask (using uniformitarian layers for terminology purposes only) what layer marks the onset, which layers preceded the flood, which layers formed during the peak stages of the flood and which layers formed after. I'm not asking you to accept the dating of the layers, I'm asking you to use the names as a common reference. Wanna try again? Heck, I'd settle for you telling me what 'most' means in your terminology? Is what uniformitarians refer to as the Paleozoic flood or not flood? How about the Mesozoic (flood or no flood?). The Cenozoic (flood or no flood)? Or do you assert that superposition of strata is totally meaningless even compressed to a 6000 year (or 1 year) time interval?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by allenroyboy, posted 02-21-2005 10:08 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by allenroyboy, posted 02-23-2005 12:31 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 96 (187776)
02-23-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Joe Meert
02-23-2005 8:13 AM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
quote:
I'd settle for you telling me what 'most' means in your terminology? Is what uniformitarians refer to as the Paleozoic flood or not flood? How about the Mesozoic (flood or no flood?). The Cenozoic (flood or no flood)? Or do you assert that superposition of strata is totally meaningless even compressed to a 6000 year (or 1 year) time interval?
I'm aware of a hand full of creationary catactclysmic flood models [you mentioned Setterfield for one] Some begin and end the flood in different parts of the geologic record. However, the more popular ideas put the beginning of the flood with layers that are typically called 'Cambrian' and put the end of the flood in layers typically labled 'Tertiary.'
Flood cataclysmic geologists believe that 'superposition' is the most important 'law' of geology. What they disagree with is the typical interpetation of depositional environments. The current sedimentary rock classification system is based on the uniformitarian concept of three primary depositional environments (with many sub-environments) -- marine, non-marine (i.e. continental) and transitional. Such a classification system automatically precludes interpretation of the geologic record as the result of a global cataclysm of Biblical perportions. Flood cataclysmists agree that such a classification system is valid as long as there has not been a global flood, but they believe that there has been such a global cataclysm. Therefore, any classification system based on the idea that there was no global cataclysm is bound to be inadequate. As a result, there is now a concerted effort among flood cataclysmic geologists to develop a new interpretive classification system of sedimentary rocks.
Just as uniformitarian geologists base their classification system upon their belief in naturalism, Flood cataclysmists base their interpretation upon their belief in the Biblical record.
Most flood cataclysmists are Christains, meaning that they believe in Jesus as their savior. Not only is Jesus their savior he is also the creator.
quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. John 1:1-3,14
As God and Creator, Jesus the Word spoke to us telling us what he has done and what he will do.
quote:
Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7
He did this by moving men to write.
quote:
You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20,21
Thus, believers in Jesus have confidence that the books of the Bible are not a collection of superstitious myths, but rather, they reveal the truth about God, what he has done, and are for our good.
quote:
All Scripture is God-breathed {inspired} and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16,17
So when Christians read where Jesus reveals to us through his prophets that there was a global cataclysm, they place full confidence in it.
Nature, as it functions now, is not cataclysmic, but we know through the Witness who was there, who caused it, and who has told us about it, that the ordinary was superceeded by an extraordinary global event. Therefore, how nature functions now can not be the model by which to interpret the geologic record. It will be inadequate at best. So, Flood cataclysmists look to the rare and limited cataclysmic events to model the Flood cataclysm.
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Joe Meert, posted 02-23-2005 8:13 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Brad McFall, posted 02-23-2005 1:57 PM allenroyboy has not replied
 Message 71 by Joe Meert, posted 02-23-2005 3:00 PM allenroyboy has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 70 of 96 (187801)
02-23-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by allenroyboy
02-23-2005 12:31 PM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
I fail to see how this is somehow a bad thing. It seems good that, very good in fact, that there would be an alternative in which a catastrophic fundament finds the foundation of the alternative. Your explanation of the "classification" in thrms of marine, not marine and transitional, has cleared up my query. Thanks! I was stuck on life and did not see that there was another topographical solution I had not provisioned for. Thanks again!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by allenroyboy, posted 02-23-2005 12:31 PM allenroyboy has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 71 of 96 (187826)
02-23-2005 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by allenroyboy
02-23-2005 12:31 PM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
quote:
I'm aware of a hand full of creationary catactclysmic flood models [you mentioned Setterfield for one] Some begin and end the flood in different parts of the geologic record.
JM: I know, I find that most intriguing. I know it does not bother you (even though it should), but shouldn't a global cataclysm of such importance be easy to recognize in the geologic strata? Yet it seems there are only a handful of creationists who even attempt to be pinned down on specifics (I know why!).
quote:
However, the more popular ideas put the beginning of the flood with layers that are typically called 'Cambrian' and put the end of the flood in layers typically labled 'Tertiary.'
JM: Yes, so how is it that layers from Cambrian through Tertiary contain hundreds (if not thousands) of paleosols? These ancient soil horizons require time to form. They contain rootlets and burrows indicating a thriving (and non submersed) community. You can find them all over the globe and all through the geologic column. They are utterly unexplainable in terms of a global flood.
Vertebrate burrows in Jurassic Paleosol (courtesy S. Hasiotis)
How do you explain the presence of glacial deposits in the Ordovician for example in your flood model?
Tillite example.
What flood produces massive aeolian deposits?
Navajo Sandstone
What were termites doing establishing colonies and building giant nests in the midst of this global tempest.
FOSSIL TERMITE MOUNDS (courtesy Steve Hasiotis)
The reason creationists don't have a uniform model? If they did, they'd be hard pressed to explain the observations. They need to be nebulous in order to convince their brethren that the flood is possible when the geologic record is unequivocal in its rejection of a global flood. How do they explain the 10's of thousands of meters of Precambrian sedimentary rock?
quote:
Flood cataclysmic geologists believe that 'superposition' is the most important 'law' of geology.
So how were the above mentioned rocks 'superposed' in the flood?
quote:
What they disagree with is the typical interpetation of depositional environments.
JM: No they don't. They simply won't be pinned down on the specifics.
quote:
The current sedimentary rock classification system is based on the uniformitarian concept of three primary depositional environments (with many sub-environments) -- marine, non-marine (i.e. continental) and transitional. Such a classification system automatically precludes interpretation of the geologic record as the result of a global cataclysm of Biblical perportions.
JM: Nonsense. Creationists have no good explanation for paleosols throughout the geologic record. They cannot explain the existence of termite mounds in the midst of a global tempest. You can cover your eyes, but you cannot hide.
quote:
Flood cataclysmists agree that such a classification system is valid as long as there has not been a global flood, but they believe that there has been such a global cataclysm.
JM: But it's obviously not clear to them what represents the flood deposits. I know why. Agassiz understood why. The reason is quite simple, there was no global flood.
quote:
Therefore, any classification system based on the idea that there was no global cataclysm is bound to be inadequate.
JM: The 'system' was NEVER based on the assumption that no global flood occurred. That's inventing history.
quote:
As a result, there is now a concerted effort among flood cataclysmic geologists to develop a new interpretive classification system of sedimentary rocks.
JM: Baloney, they've had hundreds of years to demonstrate the flood.
quote:
Just as uniformitarian geologists base their classification system upon their belief in naturalism,
JM: Baloney, the classification system has nothing to do with philosophical beliefs. Christians, Muslim, agnostic and atheist scientists were all responsible for studying ancient depositional environments. It's only ye-creationists who refuse to see what the rocks are telling them.
quote:
Most flood cataclysmists are Christains, meaning that they believe in Jesus as their savior. Not only is Jesus their savior he is also the creator.
JM: More Christians are not flood cataclysmists, meaning that they also believe Jesus is their savior. The fact that a few have chosen to believe an ancient flood myth has nothing to do with their salvation.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by allenroyboy, posted 02-23-2005 12:31 PM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 02-23-2005 3:11 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 73 by allenroyboy, posted 02-24-2005 6:41 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 96 (187832)
02-23-2005 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Joe Meert
02-23-2005 3:00 PM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
Interesting too-
Joe can it be fairly certain that the bulbuous nature of the propounded burrow across layers is not caused by a geomorphic process as in the white area at below what looks to have been what was called the "burrow"? I notice some structure albeit of smaller dimension in the lower left. Can the good geologist confidently assert that that is of a different cause than say phil the hedgehogs' ancestor' niche construction? I was hopeing that negative entropy was an existant enough concept to entail a determinate judgement on those kinds of observations but Georgi Gladyshev has disabused me of that kind of thinking.
i dont have that expertise. Just a question if you have the time to answer - no pressure -
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-23-2005 15:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Joe Meert, posted 02-23-2005 3:00 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 96 (188253)
02-24-2005 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Joe Meert
02-23-2005 3:00 PM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
quote:
JM: Yes, so how is it that layers from Cambrian through Tertiary contain hundreds (if not thousands) of paleosols? These ancient soil horizons require time to form.
INTERPETATION! INTERPRETATION! INTERPRETATION!
Like I said before it all comes down to which paradigm you choose to do science within -- Naturalism or Creationism.
As I'm sure you know, and probably choose to reject purely out of prejudice, AiG has the following response to your claims about paleosols.
quote:
Paleosols: digging deeper buries 'challenge' to Flood geology
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
And these articles in CRSQ
quote:
Are paleosols Really ancient soils?
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The possible origin of fossil wood and pollen in the Aguja and javelina formations, Big Bend National park, texas
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
And you say
quote:
JM: They contain rootlets
Rootlets? Where are the roots? What kind of natural mechanism could rip all the rootlets off the roots and then only preserve the rootlets? If rootlets are preserved in-situ then the roots should be also.
quote:
and burrows indicating a thriving (and non submersed) community. You can find them all over the globe and all through the geologic column. They are utterly unexplainable in terms of a global flood.
Vertebrate burrows in Jurassic Paleosol (courtesy S. Hasiotis)
Creationary geologists are working on reinterpretation of burrows.
quote:
DOUGHERTY GAP: Evidence for a Turbidity Current Paleoenvironment
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Some burrows are reinterpreted as the result of animals burrowing the way out of a quick burial. This does not explain all structures that are interpreted as burrows. Creationary cataclysmists are doing what they can as they can.
quote:
JM: How do you explain the presence of glacial deposits in the Ordovician for example in your flood model?
Tillite example.
Are they tillites?? Oard has published research on this.
quote:
Michael Oard 1997, Monograph
Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic submarine landslides? 130p.
summarised here:
"A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow." M. Oard
A Classic Tillite Reclassified as a Submarine Debris Flow | Answers in Genesis
quote:
JM: What flood produces massive aeolian deposits?
More interpretation! Both the Navajo and Coconino sandstones have been interpreted as aeolian deposits. However, flood catastrophists have long pointed out the evidences fits underwater deposition far better. Austin's book "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe" discusses these evidences.
quote:
JM: What were termites doing establishing colonies and building giant nests in the midst of this global tempest.
FOSSIL TERMITE MOUNDS (courtesy Steve Hasiotis)
As a child I climbed on, played around and tore apart huge termite mounds in Kenya, Africa. I never saw any that looked remotely like this.
quote:
JM:The reason creationists don't have a uniform model? If they did, they'd be hard pressed to explain the observations. They need to be nebulous in order to convince their brethren that the flood is possible when the geologic record is unequivocal in its rejection of a global flood.
If you will read material from AiG and CRSQ, but I'm certain you don't and won't, you'll see that creationary scientists are far from being nebulous. The geologic record is also far from unequivocal. It all depends upon which paradigm you choose or unknowingly work in by default.
quote:
JM: Baloney, the classification system has nothing to do with philosophical beliefs. Christians, Muslim, agnostic and atheist scientists were all responsible for studying ancient depositional environments. It's only ye-creationists who refuse to see what the rocks are telling them.
It is impossible for anyone of any persuasion to do any science without a set of presuppositions. And, ALL such presupositions come from philosophical beliefs. I find it astonishing that you seem unaware of this most basic of scientific philosophy. But, then it may not be all that odd, given that the evolutionary and humanistic guided education system fails in any real education. And they wonder why, after nearly a hundred years of indoctrination, that 80% of the USA population still believes in God and Creation.
The difference between what evolutionists see in the rock and what flood cataclysmists see in the rocks depends upon the foundation they interpret upon.
quote:
JM: More Christians are not flood cataclysmists, meaning that they also believe Jesus is their savior. The fact that a few have chosen to believe an ancient flood myth has nothing to do with their salvation.
It runs about 50/50 between those Christians who accept flood cataclysm and not.
Jesus must also be one of the few who believed in the ancient flood "myth."
quote:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. Matt 24:36-39
What kind of salvation can there be when the supposed savior is so gullible he can't comprehend truth from fiction? Why should anyone put any trust in a future second coming when it is compared to a non-event?
No. Jesus the Word, is the same Creator God who caused the Bible to be written so we would know the truth and who caused Noah's Flood to happen and now is coming again to bring salvation and everlasting life. If people don't believe in the Flood, then why bother believeing anything else, since it can't be true either.
The problem is not with the Bible, the problem is with Naturalism and Evolutionism which has deceived the world into thinking that science can only be done within Naturalism. Science can also be done within the philosophic foundation of Creationism as well.
Furthermore, "Beyond scientific Creationism" in Dec. 2004, CRSQ [ The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) ] points out that Naturalism has borrowed all it's philosophical presuppositions from the Bible. The great scientific synthesis of nature could never have happened if it had not been for Christianity.
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Joe Meert, posted 02-23-2005 3:00 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by edge, posted 02-24-2005 8:38 PM allenroyboy has replied
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 02-24-2005 9:07 PM allenroyboy has replied
 Message 82 by Joe Meert, posted 02-25-2005 12:53 PM allenroyboy has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 96 (188276)
02-24-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by allenroyboy
02-24-2005 6:41 PM


Re: Creationary view of the Ice Age
More interpretation! Both the Navajo and Coconino sandstones have been interpreted as aeolian deposits. However, flood catastrophists have long pointed out the evidences fits underwater deposition far better. Austin's book "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe" discusses these evidences.
Then you'll have to explain terrestrial tetrapod tracks found here:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand3.htm
"Trace fossils are sorted in the same fashion as the fossils themselves. This is significant, because even if we accept the creationist hypothesis that differential escape can account for the absence of the remains of any living terrestrial organisms in flood deposits, we should still expect to find the footprints of these animals. In the Colorado Plateau region, for example, we find 3-400 tetrapod tracksites, in numerous different formations, spanning 5 geologic periods from the Pennsylvanian to the Tertiary.
Please explain how these tracks formed in the middle of a flood and how the were preserved in the raging floodwaters that dropped the entire Phanerozoic record in one year.
Creationary geologists are working on reinterpretation of burrows.
Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation!
As a child I climbed on, played around and tore apart huge termite mounds in Kenya, Africa. I never saw any that looked remotely like this.
Hmmm, could it be explained by ..., well, ... evolution?
It is impossible for anyone of any persuasion to do any science without a set of presuppositions. And, ALL such presupositions come from philosophical beliefs. I find it astonishing that you seem unaware of this most basic of scientific philosophy.
Well, maybe you should refute those beliefs rather than attempt to attack the interpretations.
But, then it may not be all that odd, given that the evolutionary and humanistic guided education system fails in any real education. And they wonder why, after nearly a hundred years of indoctrination, that 80% of the USA population still believes in God and Creation.
Funny how all the scientists who discovered evolution were YECs before they saw the data. If these presuppositions, as you call them, are so strong isn't it odd how this happened?
If you have a better explanation, please let us know about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by allenroyboy, posted 02-24-2005 6:41 PM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by allenroyboy, posted 02-24-2005 10:53 PM edge has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 75 of 96 (188280)
02-24-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by allenroyboy
02-24-2005 6:41 PM


Joe Meerts examples of Paleosiols.
Paleosols: digging deeper buries 'challenge' to Flood geology
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
I'm no geologist. Perhaps you can check this link and let me know what it is actually saying about the first of the Joe Meert examples? (the Missouri one) We will have to also wait till Joe gets back to give us some more info.
They seem to be "analysing" and critizing the Missouri example [i]from the photograph![/qs]
Would you confirm if that is the case or not? If it is you don't actually expect that to be taken seriously do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by allenroyboy, posted 02-24-2005 6:41 PM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 02-24-2005 10:01 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 78 by allenroyboy, posted 02-24-2005 11:34 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 81 by Joe Meert, posted 02-25-2005 9:35 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024