In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview.

[Wuwei]

What is the purpose of this thread? To "prove" the earth is only a few thousand years old?

 

[ABikerSailor]

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

Photographic proof says otherwise. The actual reality is rock does both. A sudden force will fracture rock. However, force applied over a great deal of time will bend it.

You're missing my point. It was several layers of rock, supposedly laid down over millions of years, that were bent. I'm talking a ninety degree bend. Rock cannot do that without breaking.

I put a link in post 90 that tells you exactly why the layers of the Grand Canyon were bent. It's because they hadn't fully hardened when an uplift happened.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is very interesting. It raises many questions about why the earth is the way it is. Questions that have baffled scientist for many years. But there is another theory that explains them.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to produce heavy evaporation. How could warm oceans exist with cold atmospheric temperatures?

It only raises questions if you ignore the very real scientific observations that have been made over the millenia. I do believe in the theory of a global flood. But I base that on human behavior. Thousands of years ago, before the end of the last Ice Age, mankind lived where he lives now, along the ocean coast line, clustered around the mouths of rivers.

As the continental ice sheets melted, the ocean levels rose. We estimate that the ocean levels rose by a couple of hundred feet. There is evidence of villages along the continental shelf in the Black Sea, hundreds of feet under the current water level to support that theory. To a primitive person, suddenly having the ocean raise up and clam your home and then keep going would certainly have been a biblical level disaster. And worldwide there are stories of a great flood.

As far as the creation of the elements go's, there is no support for the claims that they were created in the flood. There just isn't. if it were possible they could recreate them now, and they can't. On the other hand, we can recreate the base elements in atom smashers and that supports the theory of stellar creation.

My personal belief is that the Universe is actually older than current science suggests, but that is a personal belief, I have no evidence to support it.

Okay, interesting, but I have a little problem with comparing this to Noah's flood. The rate of this flooding would not have resulted in an advancement of the coastline even as fast as a slow walking speed. You could walk in any direction away from the lake and find land. There was no need to "rush" anywhere, much less aboard a boat to escape. In fact, a person would only see a couple of feet of rise in his own lifetime. And if you weren't down there measuring the high tide every day... you would likely not even notice the rise in your lifetime.

How does such a thing turn into a "catastrophic flood story"? Simple: It doesn't. Hell, we can't even convince people of evolution today, despite the mountains of evidence, because they can't "see it happening".

People want to mention Chinese flood tales, Sumerian flood tales, craters in the ocean, etc, all happening at different times, and then they try to "snap-fit" them to the flood story. NO, it's much simpler just to assume the flood myth is just that: a myth. It, just like the other Christian myths, is just an amalgam of and fresh take on older myths. Yes, there was a flood that one time. It's a recurring theme, like earthquakes, plagues, locusts, etc.

The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end. And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories. They were passed down through the oral tradition through generation upon generation of bard, until the written language was finally developed. There is no doubt that there was a Great Flood. None at all. EVERY single ancient culture mentions it. Every single one. Occams razor tells me that it happened.

There were many great floods. There were precipitation events in river valleys where people lived. There were the Bretz Floods in North America. Each culture has it's flood stories, and, if one dates them, they will find many different dates. A great flood in those times merely covered almost everything you could see. Most people of those times did not travel more than 20 miles from where they were born.

 

[westwall]

This is very interesting. It raises many questions about why the earth is the way it is. Questions that have baffled scientist for many years. But there is another theory that explains them.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to produce heavy evaporation. How could warm oceans exist with cold atmospheric temperatures?

It only raises questions if you ignore the very real scientific observations that have been made over the millenia. I do believe in the theory of a global flood. But I base that on human behavior. Thousands of years ago, before the end of the last Ice Age, mankind lived where he lives now, along the ocean coast line, clustered around the mouths of rivers.

As the continental ice sheets melted, the ocean levels rose. We estimate that the ocean levels rose by a couple of hundred feet. There is evidence of villages along the continental shelf in the Black Sea, hundreds of feet under the current water level to support that theory. To a primitive person, suddenly having the ocean raise up and clam your home and then keep going would certainly have been a biblical level disaster. And worldwide there are stories of a great flood.

As far as the creation of the elements go's, there is no support for the claims that they were created in the flood. There just isn't. if it were possible they could recreate them now, and they can't. On the other hand, we can recreate the base elements in atom smashers and that supports the theory of stellar creation.

My personal belief is that the Universe is actually older than current science suggests, but that is a personal belief, I have no evidence to support it.

Okay, interesting, but I have a little problem with comparing this to Noah's flood. The rate of this flooding would not have resulted in an advancement of the coastline even as fast as a slow walking speed. You could walk in any direction away from the lake and find land. There was no need to "rush" anywhere, much less aboard a boat to escape. In fact, a person would only see a couple of feet of rise in his own lifetime. And if you weren't down there measuring the high tide every day... you would likely not even notice the rise in your lifetime.

How does such a thing turn into a "catastrophic flood story"? Simple: It doesn't. Hell, we can't even convince people of evolution today, despite the mountains of evidence, because they can't "see it happening".

People want to mention Chinese flood tales, Sumerian flood tales, craters in the ocean, etc, all happening at different times, and then they try to "snap-fit" them to the flood story. NO, it's much simpler just to assume the flood myth is just that: a myth. It, just like the other Christian myths, is just an amalgam of and fresh take on older myths. Yes, there was a flood that one time. It's a recurring theme, like earthquakes, plagues, locusts, etc.

The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end. And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories. They were passed down through the oral tradition through generation upon generation of bard, until the written language was finally developed. There is no doubt that there was a Great Flood. None at all. EVERY single ancient culture mentions it. Every single one. Occams razor tells me that it happened.

There were many great floods. There were precipitation events in river valleys where people lived. There were the Bretz Floods in North America. Each culture has it's flood stories, and, if one dates them, they will find many different dates. A great flood in those times merely covered almost everything you could see. Most people of those times did not travel more than 20 miles from where they were born.

Yes, there were indeed many Great Floods, but the flood of the Bible is the one i am talking about. Your assertion about lack of travel is not born out by archaeological evidence. In fact it appears that ancient man traveled waaaaay farther than medieval people did. Of course the serfs were bound to the land so were prohibited from travel, so maybe that is not a fair comparison.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, the nomadic societies. But the farming cultures that lived in the valleys had a very stationary population. Yes, there were individuals that traveled, but most did not. And, of course, you had a few cultures, like the Polynesians, that traveled over half the world. By the way, I am not aware of a flood story in their mythology. There may be, I just am not presently aware of one.

 

[westwall]

Yes, the nomadic societies. But the farming cultures that lived in the valleys had a very stationary population. Yes, there were individuals that traveled, but most did not. And, of course, you had a few cultures, like the Polynesians, that traveled over half the world. By the way, I am not aware of a flood story in their mythology. There may be, I just am not presently aware of one.

Ask and ye shall receive!


DELUGE IN POLYNESIAN MYTHOLOGY
https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/040214187_Buckova.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Thank You, that was very interesting.

 

[westwall]

Thank You, that was very interesting.

This is one of the shorter papers on the subject. The University of Canterbury had a bunch more but I don't know how they fared after the earthquake. The Great Flood as myth is indeed a global phenomena.

 

[LittleNipper]

What is the purpose of this thread? To "prove" the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Seems that is the logic... The entire Universe is likely no more than about 10 thousand years old at the most.

 

[Wuwei]

What is the purpose of this thread? To "prove" the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Seems that is the logic... The entire Universe is likely no more than about 10 thousand years old at the most.

So their argument here that almost every branch of science is wrong. Lotsa luck with that.

 

[LittleNipper]

What is the purpose of this thread? To "prove" the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Seems that is the logic... The entire Universe is likely no more than about 10 thousand years old at the most.

So their argument here that almost every branch of science is wrong. Lotsa luck with that.

Science isn't wrong. It's the secular reasoning that is wrong because such assumptions begin with with an error of thought. That error is that there is no GOD. If GOD does exist HIS existence doesn't change a thing. Assumptions such as this are dangerously erroneous.

 

[Wuwei]

What is the purpose of this thread? To "prove" the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Seems that is the logic... The entire Universe is likely no more than about 10 thousand years old at the most.

So their argument here that almost every branch of science is wrong. Lotsa luck with that.

Science isn't wrong. It's the secular reasoning that is wrong because such assumptions begin with with an error of thought. That error is that there is no GOD. If GOD does exist HIS existence doesn't change a thing. Assumptions such as this are dangerously erroneous.

Why are these assumptions dangerous. The physical sciences and God are separate.

 

[LittleNipper]

What is the purpose of this thread? To "prove" the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Seems that is the logic... The entire Universe is likely no more than about 10 thousand years old at the most.

So their argument here that almost every branch of science is wrong. Lotsa luck with that.

Science isn't wrong. It's the secular reasoning that is wrong because such assumptions begin with with an error of thought. That error is that there is no GOD. If GOD does exist HIS existence doesn't change a thing. Assumptions such as this are dangerously erroneous.

Why are these assumptions dangerous. The physical sciences and God are separate.

The Supernatural in not unscientific.

 

[Wuwei]

The Supernatural in not unscientific.

Science involves things that can be observed and measured with instruments.

 

[LittleNipper]

12 Unscientific Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid
For years, we’ve maintained a list of arguments creationists should avoid. There are enough good arguments for biblical accuracy and a young earth that dubious claims can safely be discarded. Now we want to address a similar topic: arguments evolutionists should avoid.

Argument 1: “Evolution Is a Fact”
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.

Argument 2: “Only the Uneducated Reject Evolution”
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.

Argument 3: “Overwhelming Evidence in All Fields of Science Supports Evolution”
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species,the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).

Argument 4: Doubting Evolution Is Like Doubting Gravity
Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.

Argument 5: Doubting Evolution Is Like Believing the Earth Is Flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). Direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.

Argument 6: It’s Here, So It Must Have Evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.

Argument 7: “Natural Selection Is Evolution”
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.

Argument 8: “Common Design Means Common Ancestry”
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.

Argument 9: “Sedimentary Layers Show Millions of Years of Geological Activity.”
Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.

Argument 10: “Mutations Drive Evolution.”
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.

Argument 11: The Scopes Trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different story.

Argument 12: “Science vs. Religion!”
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common theme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it's untrue. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.

Why address these arguments?
Most of the attacks against the Bible and those who trust in it are based on flawed premises and faulty logic, which is why we point out the arguments above as just a sampling.

Beliefs about the past—and arguments against what God says—have real consequences. If we do demolish such strongholds, it’s because we want as many as possible to experience the fullness of God in Christ.

 

[watchingfromafar]

correction: not "in" the moon but "on" the moon

 

[watchingfromafar]

That error is that there is no GOD.

You state above that "there is no God"..,and then you state.,.,.

If GOD does exist HIS existence doesn't change a thing. Assumptions such as this are dangerously erroneous.

You cannot have it both ways. Either He does or He doesn't; i.e. in your personal view.

Just the fact that you are using His name proves He does indeed exists

 

[LittleNipper]

That error is that there is no GOD.

You state above that "there is no God"..,and then you state.,.,.

If GOD does exist HIS existence doesn't change a thing. Assumptions such as this are dangerously erroneous.

You cannot have it both ways. Either He does or He doesn't; i.e. in your personal view.

Just the fact that you are using His name proves He does indeed exists

Science isn't wrong. It's the secular reasoning that is wrong because such assumptions begin with with an error of thought. That error is that there is no GOD. Since GOD does exist HIS existence changes everything.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

I believe the ocean did not rise to the top of these mountains but rather the land at the top of these mountains had been pushed up over time due to land mass collisions.

You goofball .... what garbage are you reading... you know, mountains were not always nountains. Children learn this in middle school.

why are there still monkeys? heh heh... I showed that question to my kids so that they could a) laugh at you, and b) understand what can happen to people when they don't pay attention in school and buy into goofy religious voodoo.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That error is that there is no GOD.

No science starts with that assumption. Where do you get this absurd nonsense? Take my advice: never, ever talk about science ever again.