There was never a reason to accept them.
On its face, the flood story reads like a fable. It does not read like history.
What is in the Bible was selected by humans. Those humans may have been inspired. But fables can be inspiring.
Once again you have failed to cite any scriptures which make that claim.
Genesis says that the garden was without death for Adam and Eve. Nothing is said about no death in the entire universe.
Tell me which verse you are citing for this alleged claim.
(“Good grief”, as you say. Will you forever refuse to cite any evidence from the scriptures of your personal beliefs?)
The reason was the bible claimed to be a witness. so one must accept or reject. No neutrality.
To say its fables is a aggresive assertion that you must prove.
Anyways geology does so much to prove genesis.
Scripture clearly says god created everything and it was good or perfect. its gods work. He is really good.
Death is only from Adams rebellion.
always cjristianity taught the fallen world was originally not fallen and so perfect.
Wrong. At least there was good reason to reject a global flood.
Wrong. They were Christian geologists that you apparently are fine throwing them under the bus. Like John Fleming who wrote a piece in 1826 titled: “The Geological Deluge, as Interpreted by Baron Cuvier and Professor Buckland, Inconsistent with the Testimony of Moses and the Phenomena of Nature.”
You are right about something. It’s not just “a few dudes” but it is about the merits of the evidence. And one can easily believe that the Bible is God’s word and not hold to a global flood.
2 Likes
Hey I fnally got to the video.
the fantastic accumulation of flood stories is exactly as it would be IF there had been a famous flood and the top news story after the flood. they all would take this news with them.
its unreasobable to say eVERYBODY invented a flood story because of water issues in thier home.
whi does that? Were these people dumb? No! they were confident that thier hostory had a great killing flood. The evidence is fantastic about mankinds unity on this conclusion.
But that’s missing the entire point of ancient flood stories. They contain specific details about their own local floods or catastrophic events. It is not some distorted memory of a global event!
3 Likes
I just watched this video and it was excellent and should be more famous in creationist circles. Especially the second half. it makes a case for deposition not hjaving been proven to be from long time layering upon layering. Indeed more likrly from a single event. the strata verses banks etc stuff is excellent.
This would also be great for post flood events.
So now you are saying it was “good or perfect.” Which one?
I have always agreed that Genesis says that God’s creation was very TOV (good)—but you keep insisting that it was “perfect” instead. At least you are admitting to two possibilities now.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I’m only contesting your claim that the universe was “perfect”.
Yes, human death is explained in Genesis (and in the Epistle to the Romans) as coming from Adam’s sin.
So now you are admitting that even though this idea of a “perfect” creation is not found in the Bible, it has been a teaching in Christianity. In other words, you are admitting that it has become a Christian tradition in various circles.
I congratulate you on this progress.
Now that we have that “perfect universe” tradition addressed, what evidence do you have that there was a global flood (other than tradition?) Do you concede that the Christian geologists of the early 1800’s went looking for evidence to verify a recent global flood tradition but came to the conclusion that there was no such evidence?
4 Likes
I was hoping this thread meant Sal was finally taking an interest in discussing and understanding geology. But no. 
1 Like
We are halfway. He is interested in discussing it 
1 Like
Regarding the flood, you would do well (as would @stcordova) to spend some time and understanding with a beautifully presented book, The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth, nine of the eleven contributing authors of whom are evangelical Christians, and at least one of those nine, Gregg @davidson, a geologist doing real science, is a member here.
3 Likes
Our ideas of progress are not progressive. the original opinion in very protestant nations was of the global flood. There was no reason to drop it anmd it was because the ones who did were not chriostian really. These were small circles. If theyb were they would of just thought better and figure answers to any questions.
Do you know what an ad populum fallacy is?
1 Like
The $64,000 question is what evidence, if found, would falsify Noah’s flood in your eyes? What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify Noah’s flood? What criteria do you use to determine if a geologic structure was produced in a recent global flood?
1 Like
I know all this stuff as its very common stuff on the grand canyon.
YeEC have different ideas about the GC. some see it as runoff at the end of the flood year. others, like me, see it as a sudden runoff from some collected pool of water some centuries after the flood.
it does not show a ancient earth. in fact it clearly shows a ordinary ditch.
ICR and AIG have excellent stuff on the GC. even raft trips.
Real science must not only be REAL if you agree with it by the way!! Good grief already.
That’s conclusive.
1 Like
This type of approach seems to be more and more common. It’s seen in Flat Earth circles as well. Apparently, some people think that putting "I see it as . . . " in front of a claim makes the claim factual. Feelings and imagination are quickly replacing facts and reason in many groups.
1 Like
no its just a turn of phrase. it means from my studied approach to geomorphology which is my main scientific study.
I did at first glance years ago think the GC was runoof from the flood. however it this was so SUCH GC would be everywhere. So instead i speculate its from some sudden concentration of water that then suddenly overflowed. These concentrations happened a lot a few centuries after the flood or a few more later with the ice age melt. Missoula flood type things.
I understand creationist geologists say this too but others see a flood year end event.
To me the GC is clearly just a ditch. there is no reason to say it shows evidence of long actions.
there is a NOVA megaflood episode on youtube that deals with great floods ability and signature in bedrock canyons. A different NOVA episode from the missoula flood one.
In your studied approach, what criteria do you use to determine the age of rocks, and what criteria do you use to determine if a geologic formation was caused by a recent global flood? What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify your claims about geology?
So is it a studied approach, or just speculation?
What reasons would you accept for long actions? What evidence would you need to see?
2 Likes