ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Seashells On Top Mountains

With seashells being found on top of the tallest mountains in the world. With all the canyons and sand dunes which could only have been created by a Flood, why does science still reject the answers found right in front of them?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---David on 1/20/20
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



David:

When searcing for truth in any area, study evidence in that area. For theological truth, read the Bible. For historical truth, read histories and consult archaeology. For scientific truth (e.g. this topic), go to the lab and examine the world.


jerry6593:

One can track relationships between members of the same species, and between different species, by examining changes in mitochondrial DNA. That dissimilar species nevertheless show common ancestries this way shows that species of one kind can, in fact, evolve into species of another kind.
---StrongAxe on 3/6/20


ax: "suggesting one coelomate creature appeared, then spread rapidly spread over the planet, and evolved into other similar creatures."

I could not have chosen a better example of wild, unsubstantiated speculation than this. This is not science. Evolution insists that all life forms evolved from other life forms. Yet there are NO precursor life forms before the Cambrian.

Nearly all phyla are present by close of Cambrian. Not just simple coelomates as you imply. Invertebrates such as trilobites and brachiopods formed the majority of Cambrian life, each with advanced vision designs. These obviously did NOT evolve from bacteria!

Care to try again?


---jerry6593 on 3/6/20


The Bible itself says "study to show yourself approved", not "blindly follow what some leader says" Paul praised the Bereans, because they "searched the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so" - i.e. they didn't just take other people's word for something, but rather, they diligently (researched everything) to reach their own conclusions.---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Confusing as to why you would use the example of men, who searched scripture for truth, and then reject the scripture they used to find that truth.

And the Bible does not say they researched, everything. If I am wrong about this, show me where you read this in the Bible.
---David on 3/6/20


jerry6593:

In the Cambrian explosion, the creatures involved were coelomates, suggesting one coelomate creature appeared, then spread rapidly spread over the planet, and evolved into other similar creatures.

I recently saw a video where bacteria were introduced to the edge of tray of nutrient jelly treated with stripes of successively stronger antibiotics. They quickly filled the first stripe, but could not penetrate the second. After a while, a spot appeared where one bacterium with better resistance expanded and filled the second layer, then after a while, the third, etc., each in a sudden burst.

In each case, one creature suddenly appeared, and radiated out everywhere - just like Cambrian coelomates.
---StrongAxe on 3/5/20


David:

I think for myself. I don't allow any church to tell me what I should think or what I'm allowed to think. The Bible itself says "study to show yourself approved", not "blindly follow what some leader says" (Because that's how we get cults and schisms and things like Jonestown). Paul praised the Bereans, because they "searched the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so" - i.e. they didn't just take other people's word for something, but rather, they diligently researched everything to reach their own conclusions.
---StrongAxe on 3/5/20




ax: "How many of those are "reproducible"?"

Polonium halos are found in granites worldwide. You may observe their halos every day for the rest of your life. You'll get the same answer every time. It seems that God sprinkled the earth with evidence of His handiwork just for skeptics like you.

OK, I've answered two of your questions. Now it's your turn.

From which life forms did the Cambrian life forms evolve?????

You can't answer because they didn't evolve - nothing did.

There is no evidence of inter-species evolution.

There are no vestigial structures - they all have a purpose. Your data is over 100 years old. Darwin is not believed by anyone anymore.


---jerry6593 on 3/5/20


StrongAxe
Are these your thoughts or does your church teach this science too?
---David on 3/5/20


David:

We have several vestigial organs that can be safely removed (e.g. appendix, tonsils).

Also, that we can't live without them NOW doesn't mean our ancestors couldn't. Fish require gills to breathe. They evolved into amphibians, who developed lungs to breathe air as well as water - so they could use either one. Land conditions were more favorable, so they migrated to land, eventually found gills unnecessary, and lost the use of them, so now lungs are required.

Nature shows many examples of one part serving one purpose, and later being used for another. For example, there is a series of bones in reptiles' jaws for chewing. Exactly the same bones in humans are in the inner ear, and are for hearing.
---StrongAxe on 3/4/20


E.g. the earth was created in exactly seven 24-hour periods, the Grand Canyon was etched by the Flood, evolution is false, so all species in existence were on the Ark, even dinosaurs...StrongAxe

StrongAxe
But Evolution is false, and it is very easy to prove...using simple logic. I will explain. Look at all the organs of the body. Remove just one of them and you die. Look at the respiratory, circulatory, pulmonary or any other system of the body. Remove one and you die.

What does this prove?
It proves The human body had to be created all at once...else it could not have survived. Doesnt that fact alone, prove God had to have created man in one day...and not over millions of years?
---David on 3/4/20


Good point David.
---Samuelbb7 on 3/3/20




jerry6593:

How many of those are "reproducible"?


David:

My point is, literal-interpretation creationists insist the Bible descriptions of creation must be taken literally, and all scientific evidence that shows anything else must necessarily be false.

E.g. the earth was created in exactly seven 24-hour periods, the Grand Canyon was etched by the Flood, evolution is false, so all species in existence were on the Ark, even dinosaurs, C14 dating is inaccurate because we had cloud cover before the Flood, etc.

I was attempting to provide a reductio ad absurdum argument to show the above reasoning is flawed. Many defenses of the above are as convoluted as those of geocentrists or flat-earthers.
---StrongAxe on 3/3/20


StrongAxe
Most folks believe that every species of animal, we see today, was on the Ark. I admit, that is ridiculous.

The reason, obviously, God wanted both male and female animals, was to reproduce. We have no Idea how many species of animals were on the Ark, but we do know, many species of animals can cross breed, and create a new species.

Look at how many colors which are created by just a few primary colors. Couldnt it be possible, during the days of Noah, with just a few primary animals, God created all the species we know today? If so...using this scenario, wouldnt the Ark have had plenty of room for the animals?
---David on 3/3/20


ax: "What "objective, reproducible evidence" is there of the Bible's creation account, and of the Flood account?"

OK, I'll count that as your question. The answer is - many. Polonium halos in granites, with their 3 minute half-lives, consistently show evidence of fiat creation. Fossil-bearing layers worldwide show the rapid, water-borne deposition and burial of animals. Layer folding, inter-layer varves and polystrate trees also argue for soft layer, rapid deposition. Plus many,many more.

Now it's your turn. What are the precursors of the Cambrian life forms?

You seem to approach God's word to find errors in it. Why not approach science journals the same way. You'll find plenty.

---jerry6593 on 3/3/20


David:

Whether Genesis 7:2 says 7 of each clean animal and each fowl, or 7 pairs of each, that's still different than one pair in Genesis 6:19.
---StrongAxe on 3/2/20


How many clean animals of each kind went into the ark? Genesis 6:19 says 2 but 7:2 says 7, the male and his female (?!).---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Very observant of you.
In (Genesis 6:19) God does seemingly tell Noah he wants just two of every kind of animal. But if you read carefully, by using the number Two, he denotes sets...one male and one female.

Not that its all that important, but most folks have this picture of two of every kind of animal going into the Ark. When in actuality, it was Seven sets (2) of every clean animal and two sets (2) of every unclean animal.

I suspect he wanted Seven sets of every clean animal because they were a source of food and sacrifice.
---David on 3/2/20


jerry6593:

Given a description of theories about how life evolved, scientists in different parts of the world can examine species that live there, and reach the same conclusions.

But if you hold evolutionary science to that rigid yardstick, to be fair, you must also hold "creation science" to that same yardstick. What "objective, reproducible evidence" is there of the Bible's creation account, and of the Flood account?

There are multiple Biblical accounts of both, which disagree. Genesis 1 said plants came before man but 2 says the opposite. How many clean animals of each kind went into the ark? Genesis 6:19 says 2 but 7:2 says 7, the male and his female (?!).
---StrongAxe on 3/1/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


//Science relies on objective evidence, reproducible independent of the observer. Faith relies on trusting something without evidence.---StrongAxe//

So what "objective, reproducible evidence" does Evolution offer? NONE!

I'm still waiting for your question.



---jerry6593 on 2/29/20


Science relies on objective evidence, reproducible independent of the observer. Faith relies on trusting something without evidence.---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
And of the two, Faith and Science(wisdom of man), which one should the Christian rely?

The Atheist does not believe in God because of the wisdom of man. The Christian believes in God because of Faith. You seem to be standing on the fence.

(1 Corinthians 1:21)
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
---David on 2/27/20


David:

It wasn't that "Hitties didn't exist". It was "there was no scientific evidence that Hitties existed, so there is no way to know if they did or not", like Santa and Bigfoot. The only evidence was uncorroborated hearsay. The Bible itself discounts uncorroborated testimony - all truth must be established by "two or three witnesses".

Science relies on objective evidence, reproducible independent of the observer. Faith relies on trusting something without evidence. Different people believe different things. Because of different criteria, there are some things one can prove scientifically but some refuse to believe, and some other that some believe but have no scientific basis.
---StrongAxe on 2/25/20


Scientists first disbelieved Biblical accounts of the Hittites, as no evidence of them was ever found. Later, evidence WAS found, so they were happy to believe in Hittites.
---StrongAxe


StrongAxe
And Here you prove my point. For folks who believe as you do, The Hittites didnt exist, until science proved they existed. If they had not proved it, they would have remained fictional characters in the bible.

You dont believe in their existence because the Bible says they existed, you believe because science says they did. And for now, you wont believe Noah existed, unless science can prove he existed.

I have faith in the Bible as the word of God, not the Book of Mormon or the Quran.
---David on 2/25/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


ax: "When you address my questions."

What a cop-out!

"Science does not have an agenda to disprove God." For once, I agree with you. Science was invented by God. It is Evolution that has an agenda to disprove God, and Evolution is NOT Science. Evolution is a noxious mixture of childish conjecture and deliberate hoaxes.

I challenge you to name one thing about Evolution that is scientifically provable. I believe that the Bible is scientifically provable, and it pains me to see a professed Christian such as you disdain it so.

I have asked you to answer one question, but you refuse. I will answer any one question you ask me, so go ahead, ask.


---jerry6593 on 2/25/20


jerry6593:

When you address my questions.


David:

That's not true. Science does not have an agenda to disprove God. Many scientists are Christians. It just does not have an agenda to PROVE God. It looks at physical evidence, an does not consider the Bible to be one, as alone, it is uncorroborated. It claims to be God's word, but how can one KNOW that's true? So do the Book of Mormon and Qur'an. Do you believe those on THEIR own say-so?

Scientists first disbelieved Biblical accounts of the Hittites, as no evidence of them was ever found. Later, evidence WAS found, so they were happy to believe in Hittites.
---StrongAxe on 2/24/20


Young earth arguments begin with pre-supposition "Earth MUST be 6000 years old", then make observations fit that, like eisegesis ("Let us make the text say what we want").---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Old earth arguments begin with the pre-supposition "Earth MUST be billions of years old", then make their observations to fit that. They must use science to explain God, and for that which science can not explain, it can not be true.

The Young earth arguments begin and end with Gods word, and his word is proof enough. If we placed our faith in Science, as you clearly do, we would probably share many of your arguments.
---David on 2/24/20


Sam: "The earth existed before the six days of creation."

And you know this how?

Ancient earth arguments begin with pre-supposition "Earth MUST be Billions of years old in order for Evolution to work."

Polonium halos (with 3 minute half-lives) in foundational granites PROVE that the earth was created instantly. Accelerator mass spectrometer measurements on all fossils PROVE the mass extinction of Noah's flood about 4360 years ago. This is science - not speculation as with the Darwinists.

God's Word says:

Exo 20:11 For in SIX DAYS the LORD made HEAVEN AND EARTH, the sea, and all that in them is ...

ax: When will you address the Cambrian explosion?

---jerry6593 on 2/24/20


Locate Christian Home Based Business Opportunities


I am not sure how young the earth is. The earth existed before the six days of creation. What would take millions of years was done in days. But how many million years did the earth exist before the six days of creation we do not know. Also 6 thousand years is a guess. We have not solid number.
---Samuelbb7 on 2/23/20


David:

If heavier salt water separated from fresh water, it would be at the bottom, not middle. After rain, most would be fresh anyway. Why layering everywhere and not just Colorado? Slicing by water torrent must be during first 40 days, so when did the layering happen?

Scientific method examines evidence, then formulate and verifies/falsifies hypotheses, without pre-supposition, like exegesis ("Let us understand what the text says").

Young earth arguments begin with pre-supposition "Earth MUST be 6000 years old", then make observations fit that, like eisegesis ("Let us make the text say what we want").
---StrongAxe on 2/23/20


StrongAxe
For some reason...though I have tried many times to respond to your question, CN has not allowed me to give my answer. So I will try again with a condensed version.

In short, your answer can be found in the fact that salt water is heavier than fresh water. When mixed, they will separate, creating different layers of water. Since These layers of water were suspended over the currents of the Colorado river, the salt water would probably have been suspended in the middle.
---David on 2/23/20


jerry6593:

I was speaking about the subject of abiogenesis. I didn't say I had irrefutable scientific proof that a bunch of carbon atoms bonded together to make DNA. I doubt you have irrefutable scientific proof that a divine being uttered sonic vibrations that made DNA either.

Exactly. On earth, left-handed molecules happened to win out. There is no chemical reason why that would necessarily happen elsewhere. It's 50/50 which one would happen first.

Why does have to? Darwinism is only one part of the picture. How does the Genesis Flood narrative explain the millions of species we have now, given that there wouldn't have been room for two of each of them on the Ark.
---StrongAxe on 2/21/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


ax: "I didn't say it produced life."

You said: "Abiogenesis: scientists have conducted experiments"..." Do I need to explain the meaning of biogenesis to you?


"Organisms based on left-handed molecules need left-handed molecules, and ones based on right-handed molecules"

According to Smithsonian Magazine, "On Earth, the amino acids characteristic of life are all 'left-handed'".


"Darwinism speaks only about improvement of species, and evolution of species from others"

From what species did the Cambrian life forms evolve?


---jerry6593 on 2/21/20


jerry6593:

I didn't say it produced life. It produced building blocks of life, which shows how organic chemicals are capable of self-assembly into more complex structures. The earth's early atmosphere wasn't full of oxygen as ours is now. Our oxygen-rich atmosphere is only as a result of photosynthesis, and that only happened after plants developed.

Organisms based on left-handed molecules need left-handed molecules, and ones based on right-handed molecules need right-handed molecules. If one kind got lucky, life would evolve from that kind before the other.

Darwinism speaks only about improvement of species, and evolution of species from others, NOT about creation of the first species. That is a totally different science.
---StrongAxe on 2/21/20


ax: The 1953 Miller experiment of which you spoke was NOT a replication of abiogenesis. It did not produce life - only some primitive amino acids which he had to maintain in an oxygen-free environment. So the atmosphere would have to simultaneously change for any supposed life form to survive. Not likely! In addition, both left- and right-handed amino acid molecules were produced. Right-handed molecules would kill any organism.

Why not try your hand at the Cambrian explosion. You Darwinists insist that life comes from life. Where did the Cambrian life forms come from?


---jerry6593 on 2/20/20


Samuelbb7:

Some creationists on here insist evolution contradicts Genesis 1 because the creation order is different, yet Genesis 2 also has a different order. They are consistent ONLY if order is unimportant.


jerry6593:

Aren't you doing the same? I mentioned several things, which you haven't explained yourself. You call my explanations lame. Can you do better?

Abiogenesis: scientists have conducted experiments where mixtures of basic substances (water, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) were subjected to theorized ancient conditions (heat, lightning, etc.), and spontaneous synthesis of organic compounds like proteins and nucleic acids were observed to form over a period of mere decades.
---StrongAxe on 2/19/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


ax: Spouting off suppositions without any factual basis is an arrogant form of ignorance.

Explain the Cambrian Explosion and abiogenesis in your speculative paradigm. Your explanation for the miles-long unconformaties in the Grand Canyon was below lame.


---jerry6593 on 2/19/20


No Genesis one and 2 do not contradict each other. Just a different emphasis.

Telling the same story twice with a different emphasis is not a contradiction. It is more details.
---Samuelbb7 on 2/19/20


jerry6593:

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.

First, most that die are recycled (due to eating, decay, etc.) and very few become fossils. This is why there are gaps in the evolutionary record - many forms weren't fortuate enough to be preserved. Sudden encasing and preservation happens during cataclysmic events, like mudslides.

Second, it takes a very long time for mud to be compressed into sedimentary rock by subsequent layers - much slower than we can observe.

If one demands literal accuracy of Bible accounts, Genesis 2 creation story contradicts Genesis 1, and if Genesis factually inaccurate that early, what can one expect about later chapters?

Creationism may be comforting, but it's not science either.
---StrongAxe on 2/19/20


ax: You obviously don't believe the accurate Biblical account and prefer the atheist Darwinian account. But back up a moment and explain why, if the earth is billions of years old, there are NO fossils being formed today as in past ages. While you are at it, explain the Cambrian explosion and abiogenesis. Explain also the vast unconformities in the Grand Canyon, and the disparity of its layer sequence with those of other locations worldwide.

Speculations may be fun, but they are not science.


---jerry6593 on 2/19/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Samuelbb7:

Since the flood covered the earth within the first 40 days, that means that any dead bodies that were around would have been dead for almost a whole year, and be badly decayed. Can you imagine anything that has been dead for a year without refrigeration?!
---StrongAxe on 2/17/20


Not sure. But the carnivores would have had plenty of dead bodies to eat.

The omnivores would have done will also. But who many plants on were stored on the ark we don't know either. So we can only conjecture.
---Samuelbb7 on 2/16/20


jerry6593:

Why do they occur in specific horizontal layers? Why would there be no trilobytes, then suddenly a uniform layer of trilobytes, and then no more trilbyte?

The literal biblical flood model says that it rained for 40 days, and then the flood settled for around a year. This means a sudden huge influx of water, followed by a long, slow settling. A bunch of varied horizontal layers with a huge gash carved in it suggests a long slow settling, followed by either a very long-term slow carving, or very fast cataclysmic one. Again, a river cutting through mud makes rounded edges, not sharp jagged ones like we see.

Again, what did animals eat for the first year after they disembarked?
---StrongAxe on 2/15/20


David: You are on the right track. Keep searching and questioning everything you've been taught. That's what REAL scientists do. I recommend that you get a copy of "The Evolution Handbook" by Vance Ferrell. It's very cheap, and will answer all your questions.


ax: You need educating. No fossils are currently being made on the ocean floor or anywhere else. Why? The immense flat layers of the Grand Canyon were caused by seafloor turbidite action during the flood. The mud turned to stone later.


---jerry6593 on 2/15/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


jerry6593:

You wrote: David, the canyons were cut while the land was still flood mud.

How does "flood mud" explain many flat layers of different kinds of rock, layered one on top of the other, with marine fossils in some of them, and not others? If it were all flood mud, one would expect those fossils in all of the mud layers, but that isn't what we see. If it were soft, pliable mud, we would also see gooey rounded edges, not the sharp edges that are actually visible.
---StrongAxe on 2/13/20


David, the canyons were cut while the land was still flood mud.


---jerry6593 on 2/13/20


David:

You wrote: In the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon, you can find Marine fossils. The Colorado River didnt produce them, so how did they get there?

That just means that there are some layers of the rocks in the American southwest had been under water at some time in the past. It doesn't explain how layers of rock without marine fossils were deposited on top of those - which would also take millions of years.

If the Flood was strong enough to carve a V-shaped slice through that rock, how can that explain marine fossils radiating out sideways halfway up the walls?
---StrongAxe on 2/4/20


Non sequitur ---Cluny

Why not? Explain please.

Cluny
In the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon, you can find Marine fossils. The Colorado River didnt produce them, so how did they get there?
---David on 2/2/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


//If the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon, through its erosive powers, as science believes, All Rivers, should be creating Canyons.//


Non sequitur.


\\ If that doesnt sound logical to you, it does to me. ]]

Fortunately, most people do not go by what seems logical to you.

I'm one of them.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/1/20


I'm not saying ALL rivers carve canyons. --StrongAxe

StrongAxe
If the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon, through its erosive powers, as science believes, All Rivers, should be creating Canyons. If that doesnt sound logical to you, it does to me. Science uses comparatives in many cases to prove their point, but for some reason...they dont use it in this case.

How many canyons do you say were created by floods, and can you give geological evidence for your assertions?---Cluny

Cluny
All of them.
There are Petrified trees, standing vertical, in million year old sedimentary layers. Which means the trees being buried, lived millions of years while being buried. River erosion could not do this.
---David on 1/31/20


Cluny and David:

I'm not saying ALL rivers carve canyons. Water moving over the ground causes erosion, that depresses the land. We see this with rivers and river deltas all the time. Mud flows and collapses, so if the land is depressed enough, the banks of the river will collapse and get carried away. Cliffs made of soft wet mud don't last long.

When rivers flow across solid rock, on the other hand, erosion is much slower, and the rock isn't soft. Rock cliffs can support themselves.

It is like the difference between using a chisel to carve a statue out of a piece of marble (which works very well) and using a knife to carve a statue out of soft butter (which doesn't work well at all, and if it does, it doesn't last long).
---StrongAxe on 1/30/20


Some rivers carve canyons, some don't.

How many canyons do you say were created by floods, and can you give geological evidence for your assertions?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/30/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


The Grand Canyon was carved by the Colorado River.---Cluny

Cluny and StrongAxe
If the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River, as science says, why arent other rivers creating canyons too? If this is how Canyons are created, we should have them in every river bed, shouldnt we?
---David on 1/30/20


//
I, on the other hand, see the only plausible explanation to the creation of places like the Grand Canyon and sand dunes in the Sahara Desert, to be a great Flood. //

Please give the geological evidence that supports your view, David.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/30/20


David:

We see erosion cutting rivers through mud, getting deeper over time. With rock it takes much longer (e.g. millions of years for the Grand Canyon). A similar process makes stalctites and stalagmites, one drop at a time, over millions of years, building rock spikes tens of feet long out of dissolved minerals.

Like lasanga, the GC exposes many rock layers deposited one on another over similar time periods.

A high power source (e.g. water hose or flood) erodes faster, but the resulting canyon pattern would look very different. It would also smash stalactites and stalagmites, rather than creating them.
---StrongAxe on 1/29/20


//
I, on the other hand, see the only plausible explanation to the creation of places like the Grand Canyon and sand dunes in the Sahara Desert, to be a great Flood. //

The Sahara was a grassy meadow supporting all kind of fauna after the time of the flood.

The Grand Canyon was carved by the Colorado River.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/29/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Science can't explain how the miracle happened, but it CAN analyze the normal aftereffects.---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Very Good explanation! Now I understand your thought process, and also the reason you bring up the receding of the flood waters. If we can not explain where the flood waters went...then the argument is made mute. I can see your wisdom in that argument.

I, on the other hand, see the only plausible explanation to the creation of places like the Grand Canyon and sand dunes in the Sahara Desert, to be a great Flood. Scientifically speaking...What do you think created the Grand Canyon?
---David on 1/29/20


David:

The Bible itself says heaven and earth declare the glory of God.

Miracles are when causes outside nature temporarily override natural law, but the results are natural. Miraculous healings leave humans whose bodies function normally. Multiplying fish feed people's bellies normally. Floods leave residue. Fire falling from the sky burn buildings and people normally leaving ash.

Science is making theories about how natural law works, and conducting experiments to validate those theories. Miracles and the hereafter are, by definition, outside of natural law, so science cannot and need not explain them. Science can't explain how the miracle happened, but it CAN analyze the normal aftereffects.
---StrongAxe on 1/28/20


Unlike you, David, I have no problem with God working through natural processes that He Himself decreed.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/28/20


StrongAxe
I am a fish out of water here. I have no answer that could cause you, to have faith in all of Gods word. You need science to prove the Bible, when I am a man who simply has faith in Gods word. If the Bible says it happened, Thats good enough for me.

Being a man of science and of faith, how does science explain the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? How does science explain the miracles Jesus performed? How does science explain the Hereafter?

Science can not explain any of this, and yet, you believe it to be true.
Why??
---David on 1/28/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


David:

If all the glaciers on the earth melted, the sea level would rise by around 230 feet. However, to cover all the mountaintops (as in the Flood account), the sea level would have to rise 29029 feet, which is more than 100 times as much. This means that less than 1% of the flood waters is stored in glaciers. Where did the other 99% go?
---StrongAxe on 1/27/20


StrongAxe
My point was, the glaciers could be where some of the flood waters went. The rest, could be stored in our ground waters. With the absorbed waters, The earth may actually be larger now, than when God created it.
---David on 1/27/20


I find it funny that scientists are so in awe that our planet is so unique, but can't figure out why, and believe there are other life bearing planets out there. So much is right in front of us, just like Romans 1-2 say, but even back then before the flood when it was more jaw dropping (that GOD created this world) ....they didn't believe it then either.

But there are Christian scientists who do believe and do show awesome facts that only God could have created this universe and made this earth a marvelous place as a gift for us to live on and take care of. My problem is Christians who think it's ok to trash this awesome gift of this life giving planet while where all still here.
---kathr4453 on 1/25/20


David:

You wrote: Have you ever wondered, What would happen if all the Glaciers of the world melted?

This is is one of the warnings of climate change. Sea levels are predicted to rise three feet by the end of the decade, and there are several island nations like Narau and the Marshall Islands that could totally disappear as a result.

BTW, thanks for not correcting me on my vocabulary. The spell correction on my IPad changes my words and apostrophes on words are made impossible.

Everybody makes typos. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors only become problematic if they are so bad that they cause confusion about what is meant, e.g. if they cause ambiguity in meaning, or if they are total word salad.
---StrongAxe on 1/25/20


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


I am not sure. But why is it important whether I do or don't?---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Because when I discuss the Bible with folks, whether they choose to agree or disagree, I sometime see the Bible as my evidence. But if that person doesnt believe whats written in the Bible, as factual, its a waste of my time using that evidence. So, I will try to use your science.

Never really gave much thought to where the flood waters went, but then again,....maybe they didnt go anywhere.
Have you ever wondered, What would happen if all the Glaciers of the world melted?

BTW, thanks for not correcting me on my vocabulary. The spell correction on my IPad changes my words and apostrophes on words are made impossible.
---David on 1/25/20


ax: "But why is it important whether I do or don't?"

If you don't believe that Noah was real, and that you are related to him, then you don't believe that Jesus told the truth when he talked of Noah and the flood. And if you don't believe in Jesus, well .....



---jerry6593 on 1/25/20


David:

You wrote: Since you view it as a parable, Do you believe Noah even existed?

I am not sure. But why is it important whether I do or don't? Why is it important whether you do or don't? Is there anything important in life that you would do one way if Noah was an actual real person, and a different way if he were merely a character in a parable? If not, then the fact of his reality has no vital importance to your life.
---StrongAxe on 1/24/20


The Bible includes many stories, whose purpose is to teach us how to relate to God - i.e. to teach us faith.

Jesus constantly taught in parables - non-factual stories that taught truths.
---StrongAxe on 1/23/20


The parables, good example, now I think I understand your point. You see the story of Noah in the way I look at the Lords parables.
Since you view it as a parable, Do you believe Noah even existed?
---David on 1/24/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


David:

You missed my point. The Bible includes many stories, whose purpose is to teach us how to relate to God - i.e. to teach us faith. The purpose of the Bible is NOT to each us science.

Genesis 1+2 orders of creation contradict each other.

1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 imply Pi (ratio of circumference to diameter) is 3 (30/10), yet it's actually 3.14159... So one must conclude one of the following:
1) The Bible is wrong
2) Fundamental laws of physics have changed in the last few thousand years, or
3) The numbers given were approximate, because the Bible is not a book of science.
I personally go with 3.

Jesus constantly taught in parables - non-factual stories that taught truths.
---StrongAxe on 1/23/20


In the original creation, God drew it from the primordial water.

After the flood, God drew Noah's family and preserved species through the water.

For the establishment of Israel, the Hebrews were drawn through the water twice: the Sea and the Jordan.

And in Baptism, we are drawn from the water.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/22/20


My point is, the Bible is a book about faith, not science. ---StrongAxe

Exactly my point. Which is something about you and Cluny, folks like me fail to understand about your faith. The Bible is a book about faith, which has stories you dont seem to believe. And yet, you have faith in the teachings of the bible. If you could explicitly your view of Noah, that would be a big help.

Do you see it as just a story someone tells children? What is the point of having it written in the Bible?
---David on 1/23/20


The Bible says that there is water above the Dome of Heaven. Our space exploration efforts have failed to discover that water.
---JS1234 on 1/22/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


David:

800 million cubic miles of water is MANY more cubic miles of steam. Where would that go?

My point is, the Bible is a book about faith, not science. You would read the Joy of Cooking to make a pot roast, but not to study nuclear physics. If we read too closely between the lines of any book to discover facts about a subject that is not its main focus, we are often forced to make many inferences, most of which are total speculation.

God omitted many details from the Bible, because presumably he didn't consider them important for us to need to know.

Reality is reality. Things are the way they are, regardless of how we think about them. Our perceptions of reality may differ, but actual reality does not.
---StrongAxe on 1/22/20


// God could have simply opened up a crack in this ring and turned the flood waters into steam. //

And where did this steam go, David?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/22/20


StrongAxe
All great questions..but don't you agree, the Christian must suspend our realities, when having faith in God?

For my own personal understanding, could you tell me why you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but don't believe the story of Noah. If it is not true, why do you believe it is written in the bible?

My own personal belief, my only plausible thought about where the flood waters could have gone, is found in the ring of fire. God could have simply opened up a crack in this ring and turned the flood waters into steam. The Grand Canyon was formed, much like Lake Peigneur in Louisiana.
---David on 1/22/20


David:

Areas once at the bottom of the sea could later move to high places due to geological forces, over a very long time. One year of erosion wouldn't create the Grand Canyon.

Another problem - where did the water "recede to"? One mile deep water (to cover most mountains except Everest) is 800 MILLION cubic miles. One theory is it came from perpetual cloud cover (explaining no rainbows before) but we don't have that now.

Jesus fed people with miracles. No mention of Noah doing that, and no mention of him running all around the world to feed animals after they left. One can explain any inconsistency by pulling the word "miracle" out of nowhere, but that is intellectually dishonest.
---StrongAxe on 1/21/20


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


Shells of creatures that died millions of years ago on top of a mountain aren't compatible with a flood that happened less than six thousand years ago either. ---StrongAxe

If not by flood, do you think they got there?

Do you know how much food would have to be stored on the Ark to feed two of every species of animal for a year?---StrongAxe

Do you know how much food it would take to feed 5,000 people? Yet According to (Matthew 14) Jesus fed over 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. If Jesus could feed so many people, with so little, do you think God could have fed the animals in the same manner?
---David on 1/21/20


Shells of creatures that died millions of years ago on top of a mountain aren't compatible with a flood that happened less than six thousand years ago either.

The Bible is not a textbook of rigid science. If you try to take it as such, there are many things that start to fall between the cracks.

One thing that strains the Flood narrative is the problem with food. Do you know how much food would have to be stored on the Ark to feed two of every species of animal for a year? But ignoring that for a moment, think AFTER the flood. What did animals eat after they landed? Most plants would be dead after drowning for a year. What did herbivores eat until new crops grew? And what about carnivores? There were no animals to eat.
---StrongAxe on 1/20/20


There are other explanations for the sea shells.

Do you know of any canyons or dunes created by a flood?

the Bible was NOT intended to be a science or history book as we understand those disciplines today.

It is rather a SPIRITUAL interpretation of history or science.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/20/20


Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.