Posted on 04/06/2009 6:10:09 PM PDT by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Once again, trying to use science to explain that which is best left to the hand of God. All of those theories in the link were nothing more than theories. It also fails to explain how animals not native to the Middle East got to the ark, then after the flood only populated regions not in the Middle East. Furthermore, there can be no explanation, short of the hand of God for why all the animals marched to the ark in pairs. If you believe the bible is literal then the best explanation is that God made it happen and we don’t need science to prove it.
==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
________
Biblical references used to prove something the Bible says is a tad circular, don’t you think?
Perhaps you missed this part: “Geologists calculate that the rocks of the earth’s mantle still contain within their mineral structure enough water to fill the oceans ten times over”
How could it rain for so long? We don’t know for sure but creation scientists have many proposals:
- Collapse of a thick water-vapour canopy which surrounded the pre-Flood earth high in the atmosphere. This is unlikely to have provided all the water, but it may explain some of it.
- Jets of water shooting high into the atmosphere from under the earth and falling back as rain.
- Intense cyclones called hypercanes, that developed over warm ocean water, heated by underwater volcanic eruptions.
- Water dumped on the earth by a swarm of comets. Craters on the moon point to an intense solar system bombardment, and some creationists suggest this happened at the time of the Flood.
- A combination of these processes.
Actually, "creation scientists" have a few additional proposals:
- Celestial pumper trucks couriering water from Europa.- Heavily saturated "Sponges of the Deep" that were suddenly squeezed dry by gangs of unruly teenage "giants" who were sick of their "sons of God" dads telling them to mow the lawn and their "daughters of men" moms telling them to wash their own great-big dishes.
- A catastrophic plumbing failure at "vapour canopy" Sub-Station 4.
- "Hoses of the Heavens."
- And the most obvious: God magically "blinked" the water into existence just like He did the whole miserable planet (though this one begs the question why God didn't just magically "blink" into existence a new and improved planet instead of going on a murderous rampage).
Geology doesn’t have anything to do with evolutionary theory.
No, it doesn't, oddly enough. That's why I find it odd that geological timelines have clearly gotten altered to accomodate biological ones.
You see conspiracy where none exist.
I see one timeline accomodating the other. I see cooperation.
That they are arrived by totally independent means should show you that no such cooperation exists.
"Old Earth" theories originated in geology, several decades before Darwin.
cooperation or correlation?
I'm much more intrigued with how much "older" the Earth continued to get, after Darwin found a wide audience.
I believe it increased from estimates of 1-2 billion years old to the current estimate of 4.6 billion years old. It was already several orders of magnitude older than the the 7,000 year YEC theories before Darwin.
I don't understand why an increase in the estimated age of 2-3x after Darwin would be more significant than the increase of 600,000x before that.
Your numbers do not match my recollection. Let’s not go cherrypicking an outlier, here. Widespread scientific acceptance of even one billion years, did not predate Darwin.
IIRC, geologist James Hutton is considered “the father of modern geology”, and estimated the age of the Earth at up to a billion years. This was in the late 18th century.
Hutton was not in widespread acceptance as late as the U.S. Civil War era. Physicists believed the Earth to be at most 400 million years old at that time, and perhaps as few as 10 million years old.
That was the scientific consensus in Darwin's era, give or take 390 million years.
Can you substantiate the claims that Hutton was not in widespread acceptance during the Civil War Era? You've submitted information about what the physicists estimated the age of the Earth to be. What about the geologists?
Even taking the lowest estimate of 10 million years, we're talking about an estimate 1600x what the YEC theories said it had to be, and still before Darwin.
The physicists and geologists had different theories, and made their estimates based on different criteria, but none of them had anything to do with Darwin, and they both substantially contradicted the YEC theories.
Maybe the phrase "this summation" was confusing. So I'll link it one more time, describing as a timeline of the changing estimates of the age of the earth, with dates, names, and links to references. Maybe that will help.
Thank you for your summation. The confusion appears to be on your end, I’m sorry to say.
“And everyFixed.specieskind existing today was on that one Ark” [excerpt, corrected]
“And we have no dinosaurs today because they didn't make it on the Ark.” [excerpt]I don't know where you got that, but its not scriptural.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.