The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood

ICR ^ | April 2009 | John D. Morris, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

Few biblical teachings are as controversial among evangelicals as that of the global nature of Noah's Flood. If Scripture is our guide, however, it could not have been just a local flood covering the Mesopotamian River Valley, as taught by most leading evangelicals today, but must have been worldwide in extent and effect.

For instance, Scripture lists the primary mechanisms for the Flood...

[GodGunsGuts]

Sound interesting to me. Count me in!!!

[GodGunsGuts]

What are you asking when you say what?

[dr_lew]

This sounds like William Smith, The Father of English Geology,

This would earn him the name "Strata Smith". As a natural consequence, Smith amassed a large and valuable collection of fossils of the strata he had examined himself from exposures in canals, road and railway cuttings, quarries and escarpments across the country.

His collections ...included many types of brachiopods, ammonites and molluscs characteristic of the shallow seas in which they were deposited.

He did enunciate The Principle of Faunal Succession, but this was in the 1790's and I don't think he was pushing an evolutionary agenda at this time.

It was Lyell's later work, Principles of Geology, which systematised the work of Smith and others, which had a formative influence on Darwin.

[RegulatorCountry]

I think it was directed at evangelicals purportedly teaching a Mesopotamian Valley flood, rather than worldwide.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Tax-chick]

Some names and dates coming in on the thread. I have to go to bed!

[RegulatorCountry]

I’ve gotten drawn into the NCAA championship game, I’ll pick back up after it’s finished.

[tpanther]

I was born and raised about an hour south of Chapel Hill....GOOOOOO HEELS !!!!!!!!!

[valkyry1]

I doubt the evolutionists will ever allow that as long as they have the power to influence the process by any means available to them.

[guitarplayer1953]

How true I read a story once that said the Red sea was really the reed sea. I thought God must be mighty to of drown the who Egyptian army in a sea that was only ankle or knee deep.

[RegulatorCountry]

UNC wins, 89-72. It’s after midnight here, I’m wiped out. I’ll rejoin the thread tomorrow.

[ViLaLuz]

Post #10 pretty much addresses what I was asking.

I personally never heard a “leading evangelist” teach that the flood was only a localized flood. Who are these “leading evangelists” the article cites—I wonder.

[Cedric]

...most leading evangelicals...........in Laodecia.

There, fixed it.

[PapaBear3625]

So you are assuming a world-wide flood around 3000BC (more or less) which would have wiped out all life on land except for what was on Noah's Ark.

And the whole world's land life was repopulated from what was on the Ark.

And every species existing today was on that one Ark.

And we have no dinosaurs today because they didn't make it on the Ark.

And you make fun of "Evos"?

[atlaw]

I’ve been wondering just when the age of this Earth became such an all-encompassing issue for science.

It isn't. It's a reasonably well settled issue, with periodic improvements in methodology refining the calculations. It is, however, an all encompassing issue for creationists, who apparently believe their own obsessions must be those of science as well.

[tacticalogic]

I doubt the evolutionists will ever allow that as long as they have the power to influence the process by any means available to them.

What power do they have to prevent you from "backtracking and plugging a different set of assumptions, just to see what shakes out" if you choose to do so?

[RegulatorCountry]

It's a reasonably well settled issue, with periodic improvements in methodology refining the calculations.

Thank you for your input and opinions. I'm interested in tracking scientific assumptions of the age of the Earth over time, from early estimates made prior to this becoming, as you note, a settled issue under science, right through to today, in order to see just what the impact of these periodic improvements and alterations to calculations have actually been. There has not always been a need for an extremely old Earth, scientifically speaking, prior to the issue being deemed settled, and just how this has evolved and why, strikes me as a potentially interesting avenue.

[yazoo]

Can one not believe in Noah and the great flood without having to try and prove it scientifically? Some of the animals on the ark (if not most of them) would have to walk for years to reach the ark. There is no scientific plausible way for water to be created in order to flood the earth. Floods are not new water, but simply transfers of water from one place to another. In other words, one can believe in the great flood by simply accepting that God made it all happen. Why even argue with science about whether it is possible or not?

[atlaw]

I'm interested in tracking scientific assumptions of the age of the Earth over time, from early estimates made prior to this becoming, as you note, a settled issue under science, right through to today, in order to see just what the impact of these periodic improvements and alterations to calculations have actually been.

This summation is a reasonably good place to start.

[GodGunsGuts]

==There is no scientific plausible way for water to be created in order to flood the earth.

http://biblicalgeology.net/Answer/Where-did-all-the-water-come-from.html