Was Noah's Flood Local?

by JosephAlward 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Hooberus

  I'm sory my "" suggested to you that these men were not educated,the rest of my comment bears out that that is not my opinion.I have corrected the line.The "" were to refer back to the afore mentioned scientists.Quoting myself.I shall be more conscious of this. Notice that only a few lines later I did not us "".
  You do seem to have missed the entire point of my comment.It was as you also mentioned,that research that has greatest credibility proceeds from a collection of minds with various presuppositions.The lack of tolerance for any dissenting opinion makes for a suspect conclusion.This does not prove their findings wrong but it shows the researchers were less concerned with the truth and more concerned about supporting a doctrine.So then did these men proceed in a matter worthy of science?That requires a deeper look at the science. A real familiarity with the methods and extent of their research and that of their opposition is required to honestly decide.

  You did not respond to the history of the organization.Is this because it was new to you?Or was it irrelevant in your opinion? No comment also about the implications of young earth theology with old earth scientific facts.Do you believe God is dishonest too?

  Every thing become a matter of faith when reason no longer matters.
• 

  hooberus

  pete wrote

  quote:

  "If he wanted to make the earth with the appearance of great age and then inspire the Bible to say it is only 6000 yrs old, He could.And it would be a test of faith. Their belief in the literalness of the Bible has necessitated a dishonest God.A God who misleads scientists into believing one thing when the opposite is demanded by Him for any chance to go to heaven."

  I don't believe that a belief in the literalness of the Bible necessitates a dishonest God. I think that God has left ample evidence of the global flood.

  Almost the entire earth is covered in layers of water laid sedimentary rock, just like a global flood would cause. As you drive on the interstate look at the hills that the highways cut through. You see layers of sedimentary rock laid down by water.

  Many sedimentary layers stretch for hundreds of square miles. Also in places such as the Grand Canyon, supposedly "relatively young" geologic layers overlay conformally "much older" geologic systems with no evidence of "millions of years" of erosion inbetween. These so called para-conformities are very common. The physical evidence for long time periods inbetween is simply missing and must be taken on faith. There is no "appearance of age" in these systems.

  The ratios of radioactive elements in a given rock can be determined quite accurately. However a certain ratio does not prove that a date calculated from it is accurate. We know that Mt. St. Helens errupted in 1980. Radioactive dating of ratios gave an "appearance of age" of eruption in the year 350,000 BC. But I trust in the 1980 date because it is historical.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hooberus

  The beauty of science is it's self correcting nature.If findings in one location using a particular method of testing appear anomalous further research is conducted to determine the reason.If then the results can be repeated and corroborated by using other testing methods only then does the community consider the implications for the current model. As to age calculation, There are a variety of "natural clocks" utilized.Each method has it's useful scale.For example carbon 14 usually peters out at 40,000 yrs old and only applies to organic materials.Ageing of magma utilizes Uranium 235 that has been encapsulted in zircons.Being that the half life of 235 is 704 million yrs, this method is used for much longer time scales.millions to billions of yrs.
  Even then the results must be reproducible and corroborating evidence from other fields of research is sought.

  My childhod was filled with images of lying scientists twisting facts to justify Atheism.The glaciers were a lie, continental drift was a lie,dating methods were easily warped so as to provide proof of evolution.After all the Devil is ruling the world and he blinds the minds of unbelievers! When I got older aand actually read he work of researchers first hand,rather than the WT summary of it,I no longer felt justified in making these generalizations.My conspiracy theory was stunting my thinking ability.I began also to see that I had been guilty of wishing simplistic answers to complex questions.For instance, it is a fantastic oversimplification to explain sedimentary rock in various parts of the earth as proof of a world wide flood occuring 3-4 thousand yrs ago.To do so is to ignore the hard work and growth of understandng of objective geologists and paleontologists of the past 150 yrs.Science then in this context becomes trivial,relativistic,perhaps even deceptive.This no doubt is the reason many creationists acuse humanists and scientists of acceptance of relativistic naturalism. Because they dismiss their work on Bibical grounds,the whole of science becomes to them open to any interpretation.Any one who prizes the scientific method and it's discoveries is ergo a relativist. RW why not read "The Tower of Babel" for starters.It discusses Creationist argurment for the flood,and honestly considers the matter." A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still," my father used to say.You must first be prepared of mind to learn dispite the discomfort.Our discussion has no value until then.If you tell me that you have read it and yet have your opinion,then I can contribute little to your understanding,as I cannot argue as effectively as Mr. Robert Pennock.
• 

  Amazing

  The Flood, if it happened, had to be localized, since it is scientifically impossible for a planetary flood to have happened ... unless God altered the geological evidence deliberately to deceive modern scientists. If the flood were local, it would have to be somewhat large for a bird to not find land. Evidence does exist that there was a large flood in the Mesopotamian region, likely resulting from the Mediterreanan breaking through the narrow land barrier near Instanbul, and flooding the region into what is now the Black Sea.

  Science also finds that either an astroid or part of a comet hit the oceans, causing massive flooding, and waters to rush inland, which may explain some of this as well.

  There are other logistical problems with Noah in an Ark for a year, and the alleged rain for 40 days ... if the planet were truly flooded to the tops of the highest mountains, the rain volume alone would have been impossible, as there is not enough atmospheric space to hold the dense rain clouds needed ... the shear forces from an inrush of such water volume would have boiled the water, and the crushing impact of water volume would have destroyed certain geological formations ... such as river varves which take over 100,000 to form ... all sea life would have died from lack of food and being boiled. There is just to much evidence against a global flood.

  The Bible account is likely a misture of some truth, legend, lore, and embellishment all fashioned into an allegory ... to teach some lessons, but not meant to be taken literally.

  Following Bible principles, we will avoid trying to live - or demand others to live - by an extensive and rigid set of dos and don'ts that go beyond the teachings of the Bible. The Watchtower, 4-15-02, pg 22, pp 15