Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[thesometimesaint]

I hope no one's faith is hanging on scientists being mistaken about the decay rate of carbon 14 

 

I'm sure not.

[Rivers]

Yes and no.  The only other explanation would be if the earth's creation was completed 6000 years ago, but the materials it consists of were much older.  Just as I can buy antique fabric and turn it into a cushion.  The cushion would be brand new, the materials would be much older.

Good point.  But the being able to date things paves the way to make sense out of all the other data that we have. 

[danielwoods]

Good point.  But the being able to date things paves the way to make sense out of all the other data that we have. 

 

The sense one makes is only as accurate as those assumptions used to create that model. 

 

For the uniformitarian model, that all things have happened as we see them happening today. 

[thesometimesaint]

The sense one makes is only as accurate as those assumptions used to create that model. 

 

For the uniformitarian model, that all things have happened as we see them happening today. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

 

When we go too far afield the science comes back to bite us on the butt. IE: If  I heat milk for my hot chocolate and miniature flying pink elephants fly out. Chances are real good it was I that did something wrong and not the milk.

 

To draw it back to a Global Flood. Water whether liquid or vapor has weight. Enough water vapor and rain to cover the entire globe would crush every living thing to less than tissue paper thickness. Plus increasing the atmospheric pressure on objects increases its heat. So Noah would have been boiled alive

Edited February 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

 

When we go too far afield the science comes back to bite us on the butt. IE: If  I heat milk for my hot chocolate and miniature flying pink elephants fly out. Chances are real good it was I that did something wrong and not the milk.

 

To draw it back to a Global Flood. Water whether liquid or vapor has weight. Enough water vapor and rain to cover the entire globe would crush every living thing to less than tissue paper thickness. Plus increasing the atmospheric pressure on objects increases its heat. So Noah would have been boiled alive

 

As I said, every model has assumptions that it is built on. 

 

Is there a God involved or not? Answering that isn't a scientific question, but can have implications that effect one's model. 

 

If there is a God how much involvement or how little? 

 

WIth the flood, Noah and every prophet following him claim that God was involved. Even Jesus referenced the days before Noah's flood as a real event. How much involvement was God? If one believes in God, then his involvement can't be discounted. One can't say that Noah couldn't do this or that because it's not possible. Actually, it is if the Creator is involved. 

 

If the answer is that there is no involvement of God at all, in the world or it's beginnings, then that too isn't a scientific position, which also effects the model. If one doesn't believe there is a creator at all (as an example Atheists), then believing that all life arose from matter mixed with energy somehow becomes believable, even though there's not one bit of observable documentation that tells us it can occur. 

So what one believes certainly does effect one's science and which model they think is the most persuasive. 

Edited February 13, 2014 by danielwoods

[David T]

As I said, every model has assumptions that it is built on. 

 

Is there a God involved or not? Answering that isn't a scientific question, but can have implications that effect one's model. 

 

If there is a God how much involvement or how little? 

 

WIth the flood, Noah and every prophet following him claim that God was involved. Even Jesus referenced the days before Noah's flood as a real event. How much involvement was God? If one believes in God, then his involvement can't be discounted. One can't say that Noah couldn't do this or that because it's not possible. Actually, it is if the Creator is involved. 

 

If the answer is that there is no involvement of God at all, in the world or it's beginnings, then that too isn't a scientific position, which also effects the model. If one doesn't believe there is a creator at all (as an example Atheists), then believing that all life arose from matter mixed with energy somehow becomes believable, even though there's not one bit of observable documentation that tells us it can occur. 

So what one believes certainly does effect one's science and which model they think is the most persuasive. 

 

The description of the Priestly version of the flood story also involves a model of the universe where the literal windows of the firmament/roof of the heavens literally opened up, as did the ground, the chaotic waters of eternity poured back into the cosmos from top to bottom, effectively un-doing/reversing/collapsing the Genesis 1 creation story.

 

11 ¶In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

While we use the term 'windows of heaven' symbolically now, this was the ancient cosmological view of the world. God made it rain by opening the windows in the roof of the world. For a famine, he'd lock them up tight - or send some of his angelic servants to do it. No involvement of modern meteorology was contemplated or necessary.

 

Look at the below image, and read Genesis 1. This is what is being described. This is the world of the ancients, the world of the flood, the world of the Patriarchs. God was showing himself in that ancient world. We live in a different world now. And while we can certainly keep our stories, "patterned after the old one where we used to live," We can also allow room for a new story of our origins to be revealed - and in many cases, the earth and cosmos itself is doing the revealing of this new world. We should certainly be open to seeing the new ways - the new paradigm - of how God interacts with this new world the ancients knew nothing about.

 

I accept the model below as the world by which God revealed himself to the ancients. That world[view] has passed away, and we are living in the days of a new heaven and a new earth. I find that beautiful, and inspiring in regards to how God works with his children.

 

Edited February 13, 2014 by David T

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Everyone interested in cosmological 'floods' neeeeeeds to read Hamlet's Mill, wherein the authors explain the ancient Sacred Calendar as expressed through the rise and fall of the square 'flat-earth' formed out of the four points of the equinoxes and solstices inscribed within the circle of the ecliptic orbiting the axis mundi of the pole. 

 

/rabid proselytization that never succeeds in anything except bitter bitterness on my part 

[Rob Osborn]

It seems that the entire young-earth creationist paradigm is dependent on the non-acceptance of dating methods.  If the dating methods are reliable, young earth creationism falls apart and the evolutionary makes the most sense.

But how does one prove they are correct? I do know that there are enough anomalies and problems that dating of almost any type cannot be assumed to be accurate.

[Rob Osborn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

 

When we go too far afield the science comes back to bite us on the butt. IE: If  I heat milk for my hot chocolate and miniature flying pink elephants fly out. Chances are real good it was I that did something wrong and not the milk.

 

To draw it back to a Global Flood. Water whether liquid or vapor has weight. Enough water vapor and rain to cover the entire globe would crush every living thing to less than tissue paper thickness. Plus increasing the atmospheric pressure on objects increases its heat. So Noah would have been boiled alive

The flood water is still here, it didnt go anywhere other than the ocean basins they now are in.

[Alan]

The flood water is still here, it didnt go anywhere other than the ocean basins they now are in.

 

Rob, I agree.

[thesometimesaint]

As I said, every model has assumptions that it is built on. 

 

Is there a God involved or not? Answering that isn't a scientific question, but can have implications that effect one's model. 

 

If there is a God how much involvement or how little? 

 

WIth the flood, Noah and every prophet following him claim that God was involved. Even Jesus referenced the days before Noah's flood as a real event. How much involvement was God? If one believes in God, then his involvement can't be discounted. One can't say that Noah couldn't do this or that because it's not possible. Actually, it is if the Creator is involved. 

 

If the answer is that there is no involvement of God at all, in the world or it's beginnings, then that too isn't a scientific position, which also effects the model. If one doesn't believe there is a creator at all (as an example Atheists), then believing that all life arose from matter mixed with energy somehow becomes believable, even though there's not one bit of observable documentation that tells us it can occur. 

So what one believes certainly does effect one's science and which model they think is the most persuasive. 

 

When we test those assumptions they either prove true or false. IE: For thousands of years it was assumed that the sun went around the earth. We see it "Rise" and "set" every day. That assumption was tested and found to be false.

 

Technically true, but science can't put any God or Godlike force into science. That is more than just an assumption. It is the working principle of all sciences.

SEE

 

Is it God that causes water to boil at 212 degrees F at sea level? Sure, but would it be God if water suddenly boiled at 98.6 degrees F at sea level? That would be kinda tough on people.

 

I have no problem with God.

 

But when any religion makes claims about the physical world then those claims are subject to questioning. Just like Pi in the Bible was claimed to be exactly 3. That is a testable claim. It's in the same Bible that we claim to have been written by Prophets, a doctrinal claim. No prophet has put forth any revelation from God that Pi is not exactly 3. So is Pi exactly 3 or it is 3 and little bit more? In the Bible it has Jesus going up a mountain and shown the whole earth. The earth is a ball. No matter how high up you go. The most you'll see is 1/2 of it. IF he was shown it in a "vision". Why the necessity to go up a mountain?

 

God is omnipotent. Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. Individual scientists are free believe or not believe as they choose. SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-fait

 

I'm not an Atheist. However one of our tenets is truth is truth no matter where we find it. IF an Atheist makes a testable claim about our physical world, and that test is confirmed as true. Then we as Saints should be willing to accept it. I have no problem with God.  I have no problem with God using Evolution in his Creation of us. That is the "model" I'm using.

[danielwoods]

The description of the Priestly version of the flood story also involves a model of the universe where the literal windows of the firmament/roof of the heavens literally opened up, as did the ground, the chaotic waters of eternity poured back into the cosmos from top to bottom, effectively un-doing/reversing/collapsing the Genesis 1 creation story.

 

11 ¶In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

While we use the term 'windows of heaven' symbolically now, this was the ancient cosmological view of the world. God made it rain by opening the windows in the roof of the world. For a famine, he'd lock them up tight - or send some of his angelic servants to do it. No involvement of modern meteorology was contemplated or necessary.

 

Look at the below image, and read Genesis 1. This is what is being described. This is the world of the ancients, the world of the flood, the world of the Patriarchs. God was showing himself in that ancient world. We live in a different world now. And while we can certainly keep our stories, "patterned after the old one where we used to live," We can also allow room for a new story of our origins to be revealed - and in many cases, the earth and cosmos itself is doing the revealing of this new world. We should certainly be open to seeing the new ways - the new paradigm - of how God interacts with this new world the ancients knew nothing about.

 

I accept the model below as the world by which God revealed himself to the ancients. That world[view] has passed away, and we are living in the days of a new heaven and a new earth. I find that beautiful, and inspiring in regards to how God works with his children.

 

 

 

The creation models today include quite a bit more technical detail. We both agree, that those who observed the events they lived through, wrote with their understanding and from their perspective. This doesn't doesn't invalidate their experience. 

[danielwoods]

When we test those assumptions they either prove true or false. IE: For thousands of years it was assumed that the sun went around the earth. We see it "Rise" and "set" every day. That assumption was tested and found to be false.

 

Technically true, but science can't put any God or Godlike force into science. That is more than just an assumption. It is the working principle of all sciences.

SEE

 

Is it God that causes water to boil at 212 degrees F at sea level? Sure, but would it be God if water suddenly boiled at 98.6 degrees F at sea level? That would be kinda tough on people.

 

I have no problem with God.

 

But when any religion makes claims about the physical world then those claims are subject to questioning. Just like Pi in the Bible was claimed to be exactly 3. That is a testable claim. It's in the same Bible that we claim to have been written by Prophets, a doctrinal claim. No prophet has put forth any revelation from God that Pi is not exactly 3. So is Pi exactly 3 or it is 3 and little bit more? In the Bible it has Jesus going up a mountain and shown the whole earth. The earth is a ball. No matter how high up you go. The most you'll see is 1/2 of it. IF he was shown it in a "vision". Why the necessity to go up a mountain?

 

God is omnipotent. Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. Individual scientists are free believe or not believe as they choose. SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-fait

 

I'm not an Atheist. However one of our tenets is truth is truth no matter where we find it. IF an Atheist makes a testable claim about our physical world, and that test is confirmed as true. Then we as Saints should be willing to accept it. I have no problem with God.  I have no problem with God using Evolution in his Creation of us. That is the "model" I'm using.

 

Right. And I used to agree, that the evolutionary model held water. I don't any more. 

[thesometimesaint]

Right. And I used to agree, that the evolutionary model held water. I don't any more. 

 

Please explain why.

[bcuzbcuz]

The flood water is still here, it didnt go anywhere other than the ocean basins they now are in.

I'm glad you see the importance of oceanic waters in the big picture. Take a trip to Poland, if no where else than through your computer, to Wieliczka salt mines.

http://www.wieliczka-saltmine.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine

Take a look at the marvelous pictures from this mine, that operated for more than 400 years.. The mine is about 100 meters under the surface of the earth. It is 300 meters thick. (that's 10 football fields thick). It stretches for 178 miles. That's more than 3000 football fields, each more than 10 footbal fields thick. It's all filled with nothing but salt.

Explain how the salt ended up in one spot.

Try an experiment for yourself. Take a bucket full of water. Pour in an excessive amount of salt. Mix in some dirt, rocks, chicken bones, sticks, and other stuff (a very exact scientific term). Let the mix settle and the water evaporate. Let us all know if the salt ends up in a thick, cohesive layer. For that matter, explain how a global flood would give something like the Great Salt Lake that sits on the surface..

Just imagine the amount of salt this entails. A mountain,..... several mountains of salt. All in one place. What sorting process is necessary to get just salt all collected as a clump 1000 feet thick by almost a million feet long?

I'll enjoy reading your answer..

[cinepro]

I'm glad you see the importance of oceanic waters in the big picture. Take a trip to Poland, if no where else than through your computer, to Wieliczka salt mines.

http://www.wieliczka-saltmine.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine

Take a look at the marvelous pictures from this mine, that operated for more than 400 years..

 

I've actually been to that salt mine.  It is incredible!  Of course, the miners carved that chapel and other statues of Saints and religious figures because they were deeply religious (and, as you can imagine, always fearful they'd be meeting God real soon).

 

So the mine is actually an excellent example of "intelligent design"  It didn't just create itself!

[thesometimesaint]

The flood water is still here, it didnt go anywhere other than the ocean basins they now are in.

 

:rofl:

[thesometimesaint]

I'm glad you see the importance of oceanic waters in the big picture. Take a trip to Poland, if no where else than through your computer, to Wieliczka salt mines.

http://www.wieliczka-saltmine.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine

Take a look at the marvelous pictures from this mine, that operated for more than 400 years.. The mine is about 100 meters under the surface of the earth. It is 300 meters thick. (that's 10 football fields thick). It stretches for 178 miles. That's more than 3000 football fields, each more than 10 footbal fields thick. It's all filled with nothing but salt.

Explain how the salt ended up in one spot.

Try an experiment for yourself. Take a bucket full of water. Pour in an excessive amount of salt. Mix in some dirt, rocks, chicken bones, sticks, and other stuff (a very exact scientific term). Let the mix settle and the water evaporate. Let us all know if the salt ends up in a thick, cohesive layer. For that matter, explain how a global flood would give something like the Great Salt Lake that sits on the surface..

Just imagine the amount of salt this entails. A mountain,..... several mountains of salt. All in one place. What sorting process is necessary to get just salt all collected as a clump 1000 feet thick by almost a million feet long?

I'll enjoy reading your answer..

 

It is even worse. Calcium Carbonate(Chalk) can only form in salty water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate

[bcuzbcuz]

I've actually been to that salt mine.  It is incredible!  Of course, the miners carved that chapel and other statues of Saints and religious figures because they were deeply religious (and, as you can imagine, always fearful they'd be meeting God real soon).

 

So the mine is actually an excellent example of "intelligent design"  It didn't just create itself!

I'll buy the idea that the chandaliers and cathedrals and statues made of salt display an intelligent design.. 

Edited February 15, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[Rob Osborn]

I'm glad you see the importance of oceanic waters in the big picture. Take a trip to Poland, if no where else than through your computer, to Wieliczka salt mines.

http://www.wieliczka-saltmine.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine

Take a look at the marvelous pictures from this mine, that operated for more than 400 years.. The mine is about 100 meters under the surface of the earth. It is 300 meters thick. (that's 10 football fields thick). It stretches for 178 miles. That's more than 3000 football fields, each more than 10 footbal fields thick. It's all filled with nothing but salt.

Explain how the salt ended up in one spot.

Try an experiment for yourself. Take a bucket full of water. Pour in an excessive amount of salt. Mix in some dirt, rocks, chicken bones, sticks, and other stuff (a very exact scientific term). Let the mix settle and the water evaporate. Let us all know if the salt ends up in a thick, cohesive layer. For that matter, explain how a global flood would give something like the Great Salt Lake that sits on the surface..

Just imagine the amount of salt this entails. A mountain,..... several mountains of salt. All in one place. What sorting process is necessary to get just salt all collected as a clump 1000 feet thick by almost a million feet long?

I'll enjoy reading your answer..

http://www.icr.org/article/532/

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.icr.org/article/532/

 

The IRC is not a scientific organization.

[Helen47]

Here is an interesting paper on the flood

 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

 

"So, allow me present some scientific evidence: there could not have been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible because there is simply not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to produce such a flood.

According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the amount of water in the earth’s atmosphere could not possibly cover the earth.¹¹ In fact:

 

One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi³) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km³). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth’s water volume of about 332,500,000 mi³ (1,385,000,000 km³)

 

If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the ground to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.

 

Additionally, because only 1.7% of the earth’s water is stored underground,¹² there is not nearly enough water in groundwater storage beneath the earth’s surface to account for the amount of water necessary to flood the entire earth to the extent described in the Bible.

Simply put: there is not enough water in Earth’s atmosphere to raise the ocean’s levels over an inch, much less to cover Mt. Ararat with water from 40 days of rain. There is simply not that much water in the system."

[bcuzbcuz]

http://www.icr.org/article/532/

 

The article is misleading and incorrect on several points, which I'm sure Morris Ph.D is well aware of. 

 

Morris asks: "The evidence does not fit with the idea of a trapped lagoon. Where are the fossils?" 

 

You need look no further than the Great Salt Lake. How many animals go down to the water's edge to get a refreshing drink of over-salted water at Salt Lake? Animals may die of thirst getting to the Salt Lake but they're not going to wade into the water. 

 

Morris says: "Many now think the salt was extruded in superheated, supersaturated salt brines from deep in the earth along faults."

 

Which or who are these "many" he talks about? "Many", is that a scientific term?

 

The "many" Morris refers to are obviously not those who have written about the salt deposits in Wieliczka.

 

"The salt deposit in Wieliczka formed in the Miocene Epoch, 13.6 million years ago. The Miocene period abounded in substantial transformations in the geological structure of the Earth’s crust. As a result of colliding tectonic plates new mountain ranges were formed, among them – the Carpathians. In the rift located in their foreground, known as the pre-Carpathian basin, a huge sea was formed. It constituted a northern branch of the Tethys Ocean named so in the modern days to honour a character from the Greek mythology – Thetys, a wife to Titan Okeanos. Various types of rock sedimented in the reservoir, rock salt layers formed as well.

Salt deposits formed in many parts of this huge reservoir. Deposit formation processes were connected with cyclical changes of the water level and shoreline as well as submarine landslides and flows occurring in parallel. The reservoir also received varied amounts of terrigenous material – claystone, silt, and sand. The salts precipitating in the shallower shelf areas of the basin partly dissolved and eroded. Drifting to the open sea, they crystallised again.

The Wieliczka deposit formed over the period of approximately twenty thousand years. It owes its final shape to the orogeny which resulted in accumulation of salt deposits causing a several-fold increase in their original thickness. This action had also this effect that they were elevated to the surface thanks to which, millions years later, exploitation of the deposits could be started easily.

Presently, the Wieliczka rock salt deposit stretches latitudinally over the area of almost 10 kilometres. Its width extends from several hundred metres to 1.5 km and it is located at the depth reaching from approximately 30 m to approximately 330 metres below the surface of land."

 

Morris states: "Seawater contains many chemical and mineral impurities as well as both single-celled and multi-celled plants and animals and any exposed dry lagoon will be an active life zone. Thus, modern evaporites are quite impure."

 

This statement is willfully misleading. I have, on my spice shelf at home, bought at source, two jars of salt extracted from seawater from Porto, Portugal. It's rather grayish in colour of small particles, from being "combed" and collected from salt water pools close to the ocean source but is well suited for food and cooking. "Modern evaporates are quite impure" is a quite impure statement.

 

 

[Rob Osborn]

The IRC is not a scientific organization.

Typical evolutionists...

[Rob Osborn]

Here is an interesting paper on the flood

 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

 

"So, allow me present some scientific evidence: there could not have been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible because there is simply not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to produce such a flood.

According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the amount of water in the earth’s atmosphere could not possibly cover the earth.¹¹ In fact:

 

One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi³) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km³). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth’s water volume of about 332,500,000 mi³ (1,385,000,000 km³)

 

If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the ground to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.

 

Additionally, because only 1.7% of the earth’s water is stored underground,¹² there is not nearly enough water in groundwater storage beneath the earth’s surface to account for the amount of water necessary to flood the entire earth to the extent described in the Bible.

Simply put: there is not enough water in Earth’s atmosphere to raise the ocean’s levels over an inch, much less to cover Mt. Ararat with water from 40 days of rain. There is simply not that much water in the system."

The flood waters now comprise the watwrs found in the ocean. The mountains we now have came about after the flood.