Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 84 of 84

Thread: Was the flood of Genesis local to the continent of Australia?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,927
    Thanks
    264
    Thanked 334 Times in 277 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John53 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Once again, my eternal salvation is in no way affected by the age of Uluru, the Earth or Creation. So you would be wrong, it is a totally separate issue.

    Have a good day!
    Still small
    We both know that not to be true. (At least that's the way it appears to me.)
    What is it about 'eternal salvation' that causes you to believe that my eternal salvation is affected 'by the age of Uluru, the Earth or Creation'? What, in your opinion, is 'eternal salvation' dependent upon?

    Have a good day!
    Still small

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    woonsocket ri
    Posts
    3,846
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 385 Times in 342 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    [QUOTE=Taikoo;1297032][QUOTE=5555;1297025
    Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a "representative sample"?
    How might it apply here?
    Yes, they also say, "If at first you do not succeed, quit, for lo, it is crazy to try again."
    Ah so, self loathing.
    You sure can concoct wild conclusions based on nothing but your own
    mind, such as it is.
    Now, I do not doubt that you, personally, suffer grievously from a lack of info.
    You clearly dont know squat about geology. Those who do, tho, are aware of such things as that there was no flood.
    All your "statements of faith" are prompted by malice? You've a prob, bro, if so.
    Pretty much every place has had local floods. A great deal of Australia is
    made up of rock of marine origin.
    I will leave those who will to dispute your indisputable bible-readin'.
    your numbers are correct, but the rate of seafloor spreading
    and other aspects of plate tectonics is well evidenced. One can, for example,
    see how wide the Atlanatic was 20 million years ago by dating the rock
    and measuring how far it is from the present mid ocean rift.
    This stuff takes work but it is conceptually simple.
    Hint: Grades are directly proportional to study.
    "Force you to believe"? weird.
    What, btw, makes you as a presumptive Christian, comfortable is
    falsely accusing me of "malice"? How do you rationalize that?[/QUOTE]
    Long ago Taikoo you pointed out that my geology teacher (who had no consideration of the Bible) was badly misrepresenting geology. If I learned it wrong from someone who believes what he was teaching how can we assume anyone learned it right? Also I assume things taught right in geology class 35 years ago are now considered wrong, so a generational rift exists among non-geologists who took geology and learned no more about it since long ago.
    It barely matters, but in this instance I was using what he said about rivers, simply figuring out how long it takes one pebble to go the length of a river and multiplying by the number of pebbles at the mouth of a river to get the approximate age of the river.

    What was that called? Uniformitarianism?

    Is that calculation involved in plate tectonics?

    The Bible allows me only to believe that the Americas never touched Europe or Africa (but perhaps the Bering landbridge existed as recently as 3500 years ago), or that Pangea existed until about 2000 bc.
    In the latter case it started fast and slowed down before anyone noticed. Obviously that could have happened over millions of years as well.

    That brings me back to a question I asked years ago. No one understood it then. Do geologists ever argue whether something happened 3 billion years ago versus 2.4 billion years ago? That type of disagreement should come up sometimes shouldn't it? Otherwise geology is a cult.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    601
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 38 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    I believe that, due to the sometimes vast differences in results for the different samples and for different radiometric dating methods, the results are next to worthless. The only 'advantage' is for those that like to 'cherry pick' the result that best fits their particular theory, ignoring all others. There is obviously something in radiometric decay that we do not understand or have missed.

    Yes, I would disagree that certain uranium rich rocks are 4.4 billion years old.

    No, I would not consider the ages as "reasonable assessments". When determining the age of the Yallourn formation, as with the samples from Jack Hills of Western Australia, the evidence is being interpreted with the 'slow and gradual' Uniformitarian a priori of 'millions and billions' of years. This a priori does not account or allow for catastrophic events, the evidence of which, I believe, is all around for those willing to look.

    I believe the 'days' mentioned in Genesis 1, according to the context and hermeneutics, are meant as 24 hour days. I also believe that God, as described in the Scriptures, is capable of creating all that we see in six '24 hour' days as experienced here on Earth. In fact, He is capable of doing it in six seconds, if He chose to but He had a reason for the '24 hour days'. God is not restricted or constrained by the time dimension as we are. There is an interesting theory put forward by Dr Russell Humphreys in relation to the Creation Week and time dilation in his book, Starlight and Time. (Dr D Russell Humphreys is the physicist that accurately predicted the existence and strengths of the magnetic fields of various planets in our Solar System (link) much to the disbelief of the secular physicists, as I've mentioned elsewhere.)

    As for the formation of the Earth, I believe it was between 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. At the extreme, no more than 50,000 years ago but certainly not 4.4 billion years for a number of reasons.
    hmmm... i've only briefly reviewed radiometric dating methods at the header level...

    "The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

    It seems like common sense methodology....
    But, vast differences in results (as you pointed out) would not lead me to declare any conclusions...
    Could you help me understand a bit better why you think the method of radiometric dating is flawed?

    Gee...
    God can form all of Earth, and the Universe, in literally 6 days (or even seconds if God wanted)???
    God is not constrained by the time dimension???

    Sorry... I can't get on board with that...

    I wasn't trying to discuss the idea of time in this thread, but looks like that is the direction it took...
    Isn't time just a figment of imagination?
    You can measure it consistently using the seasons of the sun, moon, stars. But still, those are all things observed by your imagination.
    So does time even exist?

    Also, it may be silly to think, because we have assessed the oldest rock to be 4.4 billion years old, we conclude this is the age of earth.

    In both the biblical and scientific schools of thought, there seems to be some kind of belief in magic.

    The scientific idea posits Earth just popped up out of nowhere, in some kind of magical series of orgasms.

    The biblical idea posits God can do absolutely everything, instantly if necessary, with no impossibility.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    601
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 38 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    So there are no consequences for your eternal soul if you reject those stories in Genesis as either fable, myth or legend - or perhaps a combination of all three?
    Another topic I didn't plan to discuss when starting this thread...

    You probably could not say the bible is a morally sane book, if it leads people to think, if I reject God, I will lose my eternal being (or awareness)...

    Say you conclude it is true, you have an eternal being that is forever aware, even after death, (you may not conclude this, but just assuming you do...)

    If this is true, then this right to eternal awareness would need to apply to all life, regardless of any thought, action, or feeling done by life in its history, no?

    What could possibly give God the right to terminate eternal awareness, if such eternal awareness is true?

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •