Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Dawnofhope]

If a person believes in the Biblical Global Flood, does that necessarily mean he has to believe in a Young Earth?

If so, why?

Belief in a world wide flood and a young earth don’t necessarily go together though for many evangelical Christians who take the Bible literally, they do. It is like belief in a world wide flood and the story of Noah’s ark need not go together but for many Christians they are inseparable. Its all part of the narrative based on a literal understanding of some verses in Genesis.

While I believe in the Bible, I have no need to take Genesis literally and then attempt to make science fit my religious expectations. I have a science degree in zoology and two medical degrees so I’m comfortable with scientific knowledge and its strengths and limitations.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Where did all the extra water come from?
Where did it go?

It's still here, on the Earth.
How much do you think would be needed?
Please don't say, "enough to cover Mt. Everest." That's a faulty assumption, believing Mt. Everest (or any of the Himalaya's, or Alps for that matter) was the same height prior to the Flood.

Observation tells you these ranges are relatively young, based on lack of erosion.
Oh, the rocks themselves are old -- millions of years -- but the features they've formed are young, geologically speaking....if these high peaks have existed for millions of years, they'd be rounded stumps by now, given the elemental forces these peaks endure!

(But some scientists really can't acknowledge it; it would serve in aiding to destroy their precious naturalistic dogma. Lol.)

No, Earth's topography before the Deluge was much smoother than it is today. (Psalm 104 agrees with that evidence.)

So, much less water was needed than what many might think.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Belief in a world wide flood and a young earth don’t necessarily go together though for many evangelical Christians who take the Bible literally, they do. It is like belief in a world wide flood and the story of Noah’s ark need not go together but for many Christians they are inseparable. Its all part of the narrative based on a literal understanding of some verses in Genesis.

While I believe in the Bible, I have no need to take Genesis literally and then attempt to make science fit my religious expectations. I have a science degree in zoology and two medical degrees so I’m comfortable with scientific knowledge and its strengths and limitations.

I appreciate your civil reply...it's sad that some have to resort to calling other people ignorant when responding to issues they don't agree with.

And I'm glad you recognize that science has limitations.

But FYI, Jesus and many Bible writers including Peter, referred to Noah as a real person, and the Flood as a genuine event.

And there is evidence everywhere --anthropology, geology (some of which I posted above), archeology, etc. -- supporting the veracity of the Deluge....

I'll post some of the evidences, soon.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[danieldemol]

if these high peaks have existed for millions of years, they'd be rounded stumps by now, given the elemental forces these peaks endure

What measurement of the elemental forces at the peak have you undertaken and what calculations have you made to determine these exceeded the limits of stress and durability for the materials the peak is made from?

Or did you just assume it all for the sake of pseudo-scientific agreement with the bible?

 

[danieldemol]

But FYI, Jesus and many Bible writers including Peter, referred to Noah as a real person, and the Flood as a genuine event.

ROFL at Peter being a bible writer. Which gospel/(s) is he alleged to have written?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What measurement of the elemental forces at the peak have you undertaken and what calculations have you made to determine these exceeded the limits of stress and durability for the materials the peak is made from?

Or did you just assume it all for the sake of pseudo-scientific agreement with the bible?

In comparison with other ranges, and their content.
Do you know what comprises the Alps? What about the Himalayas?

Do you know how fast dolomitic limestone erodes, in continuous & excessive wind conditions?

I do. You can actually observe it, under controlled conditions.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So basically you are saying, in a nutshell, that you are right until someone convinces you you are wrong?

Yes, I need to be convinced. Don't you?

Suppositions don't cut it, for me. Rarely, I should say.

Too many times, so-called "authorities" from both secular & religious feilds have attempted to deceive me. I'm a skeptic, seriously.

But through extensive study, I've never found the Bible to be faulty. Only faulty interpretations of it.

The Bible is written in a way that tests people, it reveals a lot about those who read it...if they're humble, or prideful.

Fortunately, I have a secular education too, that helps me in reaching accurate & beneficial conclusions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

ROFL at Peter being a bible writer. Which gospel/(s) is he alleged to have written?

What is so funny? Don't roll and laugh too much... do the gospels make up the whole Bible, to you?
2 Peter 2:4; 2 Peter 3:5-6

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Belief in a world wide flood and a young earth don’t necessarily go together though for many evangelical Christians who take the Bible literally, they do. It is like belief in a world wide flood and the story of Noah’s ark need not go together but for many Christians they are inseparable. Its all part of the narrative based on a literal understanding of some verses in Genesis.

While I believe in the Bible, I have no need to take Genesis literally and then attempt to make science fit my religious expectations. I have a science degree in zoology and two medical degrees so I’m comfortable with scientific knowledge and its strengths and limitations.

Truth is truth, wouldn't you agree? IOW, truth is accuracy.... In any fields, if what is claimed is accurate, then those concepts would agree, reinforce each other, & harmonize...right?
So genuine science would agree with religious truth.
It would have to, since the God of religious truth is also the Source of all energy & matter.

Unfortunately, current science under its parameters of naturalism will never find corroborating answers to the questions it seeks (especially those dealing with origins of anything novel), because it can't accept the Cause.

Just how far do you think naturalism reaches in explaining the universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't ask any question. In post #845, I asked for specific knowledge. That's not vague.

For that matter, I was not asking you, was I? I asked @adrian009 .

Well, adrian009? Have you really examined the evidence yourself, or have you relied on others to tell you what to think on this subject?

LOL!! You cannot get much more vague than that.

I gave you a possible solution, but you know that you are wrong and you used Creationist Plan B. RUN AWAY!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I thought. No explanation.

What do you want explained? You made a rather ignorant claim. It was explained to be wrong. You may be too uneducated to see how.


Tell me, why are you surprised that the water on permafrost is fresh? Why on Earth do you think that needs a detailed explanation?

 

[Audie]

It's still here, on the Earth.
How much do you think would be needed?
Please don't say, "enough to cover Mt. Everest." That's a faulty assumption, believing Mt. Everest (or any of the Himalaya's, or Alps for that matter) was the same height prior to the Flood.

Observation tells you these ranges are relatively young, based on lack of erosion.
Oh, the rocks themselves are old -- millions of years -- but the features they've formed are young, geologically speaking....if these high peaks have existed for millions of years, they'd be rounded stumps by now, given the elemental forces these peaks endure!

(But some scientists really can't acknowledge it; it would serve in aiding to destroy their precious naturalistic dogma. Lol.)

No, Earth's topography before the Deluge was much smoother than it is today. (Psalm 104 agrees with that evidence.)

So, much less water was needed than what many might think.

A Bible verse is not geological evidence, still less evidence you have examined for yourself.

Agreed?

The erosion thing you mention has two basic components, time, and the effects of erosion.

The time aspect also subdivided. Rate of erosion, how long its been going on, and,
whether the mountains have stopped growing.

Your facile "millions..rounded" takes none of that into due consideration.

One question - does erosion, in your belief,
always smooth and round the earth, or can it produce spires, knife ridges, cliffs etc?

 

[McBell]

It's still here, on the Earth.
How much do you think would be needed?
Please don't say, "enough to cover Mt. Everest." That's a faulty assumption, believing Mt. Everest (or any of the Himalaya's, or Alps for that matter) was the same height prior to the Flood.

Observation tells you these ranges are relatively young, based on lack of erosion.
Oh, the rocks themselves are old -- millions of years -- but the features they've formed are young, geologically speaking....if these high peaks have existed for millions of years, they'd be rounded stumps by now, given the elemental forces these peaks endure!

(But some scientists really can't acknowledge it; it would serve in aiding to destroy their precious naturalistic dogma. Lol.)

No, Earth's topography before the Deluge was much smoother than it is today. (Psalm 104 agrees with that evidence.)

So, much less water was needed than what many might think.

Most interesting that you fail to meet the same standard you require of others.

 

[Audie]

Most interesting that you fail to meet the same standard you require of others.

Now don't be go asking the impossible of the poor swab.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Bible verse is not geological evidence, still less evidence you have examined for yourself.

Agreed?

The erosion thing you mention has two basic components, time, and the effects of erosion.

The time aspect also subdivided. Rate of erosion, how long its been going on, and,
whether the mountains have stopped growing.

Your facile "millions..rounded" takes none of that into due consideration.

One question - does erosion, in your belief,
always smooth and round the earth, or can it produce spires, knife ridges, cliffs etc?

Erosion can never make cliffs etc.

Dang, I guess I was wrong. I want to go to southeast Asia.

 

[Audie]

Erosion can never make cliffs etc.

Dang, I guess I was wrong. I want to go to southeast Asia.

Love that karst topography

 

[McBell]

Erosion can never make cliffs etc.

Dang, I guess I was wrong. I want to go to southeast Asia.

those are obviously intelligently designed...

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

If God so choose to touch you. You would learn more in one minute than 30 years of theological university.

 

[Audie]

those are obviously intelligently designed...

And the work done by hi-speed tectnics
as in hydroplate theory

 

[danieldemol]

In comparison with other ranges, and their content.
Do you know what comprises the Alps? What about the Himalayas?

Do you know how fast dolomitic limestone erodes, in continuous & excessive wind conditions?

I do. You can actually observe it, under controlled conditions.

Take care, my cousin.

So where are the 4,500 year old marine fossils we would expect to find on Mt Everest if it was inundated with water at that time?