Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PhD scientist? My mind is completely changed and I believe you now. I wasn't able to find anyone with a PhD who thinks there wasn't a global flood.
The important thing is how he proves a global flood, not that he has a PhD.
I don't know if you have the capacity to play a video or not, you know, like, how to click a link to listen to a video? If not, could you have your mom or dad show you?
Thank you. There are evidently gaps in my knowledge of creation theory. It sounds damnably thin to squeeze a whole separate earth creation and remaking over millions of years in between Gen. 1 and 2.
I lost my connection last night, but I was going to add this about Snelling.
Points out that Dr Snelling in his Creationists papers can postulate that even pre -cambrian rocks are Flood -deposited, and then roundly contradict this view in the geological papers he publishes. Which talks of rocks millions of years old.
The good professor evidently keeps the credible scientist in one part of his head and the (orthodox) geology -denying creationist in another.
Allow me a quote, with the intent of driving several heavy nails into the coffin of Eusebius' hopes that a for real scientist with a genuine certificate from a for real University is finaly going to prove Noah and his floating zoo real.
"These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science."
The fact is that the cultists (UFO- fanciers do this as well as Creationists) love to wave about a scientist (or anyone that can be made to look like one) as some sort of proof. if a Scientist says so, it must be true! I can only assume that is because thay have the idea that the credit science has for validated facts so much that it is taught in school rather than Genesis makes them think that anything a Scientist says is sooth. If the scientist is qualified in a relevant field, that's even better!
Well, your shills all do the same thing. You and friends have taken evolution hook, line and sinker just because "scientists" have stated it is the truth. So please, don't go there as if we are the only ones who do this.
Quote:
That is not how it works. Science goes on the demonstrable evidence assessed according to the logically validated scientific method. If new information comes along, the textbook gets re -written. This is not 'Science gets everything wrong' but science follows the evidence and changes what it says if need be (as Hawking now thinks the Event horizon may expel information rather than just suck it all in), whereas what we find in Creation apologetics is taking Genesis as literally true and trying to find evidence for it in science.
Example polystrates. They in fact indicate centuries of sediment deposit, but a fossilized tree trunk in mud...must be the Flood!
Ocean animals, burried along with land animals, burried along with land plants proves sudden catastrophism . . . you know, a sudden world-wide flood. You can't lay these deposits all over the earth at the same level and not have a sudden catastrophic event such as Noah's historic world-wide flood.
Quote:
If an Ark is impossible without iron - framing - well, Iron framing then and an actual reference to Iron - working in genesis is indisputable proof, never mind that this is using the Bible to prove the Bible and if the Flood and ark is not true, why should we take an anachronistic Tubalar steel - worker as true?
Who said the ark is impossible without iron? Have you been able to reproduce exactly how Noah built his ark? No, no one has because no one knows exactly how he built it. But the fact that he succeeded, proves he did it right.
Also, did you not see the video which started this whole thread and the metals found there?
Quote:
The archaeology indicates that at the postulated Noachian date, even copper -working was in the future. Iron was not generally available until the 1,000 BC. If the evidence counts for anything.
Your archaeology is incorrect. Prior to the flood they were working with iron and copper and other metals. The Bible would not have stated as much if it were false.
Quote:
But of course it does not. If the evidence is not there, it ought to be. Has been lost, may turn up one day and then we'll all laugh as the naysayers are confounded.
Oh, I see, for many years the archeologists could not find a city recorded in the Old Testament then stated it never existed. Well that is what they said for many years . . . until they finally found the city.
Quote:
But so far the evidencer is supporting the naysayers more and more and the nails of evidence are being hammered in the coffin of creationism.
Your coffin is empty. The body was cremated thousands of years ago. No evidence at all to support your thesis.
Quote:
It cannot be too often said (in the crafty ploy of divide and conquer ) that the creationism debate is not about God -belief. It is about Bible - literalism and especially the battle between the desire to expel the findings of science and replace it with the variously interpreted theories of the creation and Flood - unless it is a 'Scientist' who agrees with it, in which case, that is as good as Holy Writ, even if that same science does not support it.
Which is where our pal and his Australian geologist came in.
But WE ARE NOT TRYING TO EXPEL THE FINDINGS OF SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CAN'T YOU FREAKING READ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????
CAN'T YOU FREAKING LISTEN TO THE VIDEOS???????????????????????????????????
HOW IN HADES CAN YOU MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS???????????????????????????????????????? ??
YOU ARE REACHING A NEW LOW.
I went to the article, "Will the Real Dr. Snelling Please Stand Up?", and read it in full. And I actually understood it! Wow!
I only have a problem with the premises that are made. Snelling contributes to Creationism with evidence that he knows is correct. But he also has to make a living. Unfortunately, when a person needs to explain things to a group that will only accept their own terminology, that person often has to do things under prescribed guidelines. If he were to write his scientific papers with a creationist standpoint, I doubt that his work would be accepted.
I can give a good example of this from my own experience. When I was 19, I was drafted into the Army to serve in Vietnam. I tried to get a religious exemption, but failed. I really didn't believe that the Vietnam conflict was legitimate, so, before I was given my final paperwork to enter the Army, I joined the Navy for the sole purpose of avoiding Vietnam. This worked very well for my purposes, except for a few exceptions. Almost all of my superiors were career officers, and they knew the system and convinced themselves that Vietnam was a war that the US needed to be involved in. Because of this, if I wanted to advance in my rate, I needed to keep my opinions on the war to myself. I didn't believe in Vietnam, but I needed to keep my beliefs hidden in front of those that affected my advancement AND my well being.
This same principle is prevalent with the present wars we are involved in. A good example of what happens when you stand up too openly for truth in the midst of an Army and a military/industrial complex that needs war to survive is what happened to Pat Tillman. He found out the truth, and spoke his mind. So in doing this, they couldn't have a person with a national stage to air his views, so they took his mind away...with a bullet to the back of the head. And this same "complex" has enough control over the media and people's paychecks and so on, to keep this story out of the mainstream.
This same principle is at work everywhere, including the scientific community. Small discoveries can be inserted into the mainstream of scientific thought, but a major change of thought that goes against the principle of uniformitarianism will never gain any traction. If you want a paycheck from science, you better tow the line. Unfortunately, we live in a world that places self above God, and this includes self interest, and it includes most of the scientific community.
The God of science is Science and self achievement, and in this day and age, it is uniformatist science. The God of the Bible and creation is infinitely higher than uniformatist science. All of the geology, mathematics, and all the other things involved in science were made by God. We are trying to discover how God put this all together. We are not trying to make God conform to science.
The same God that told the writers what to put in the Bible, is the same God that put the mechanics of the universe together, and if I, for one second tried to separate this God into two separate identities, I wouldn't have much of a supreme God, now would I.
We can banter back and forth forever, but neither of us can absolutely prove our particular stances. And the pecking and belittlement doesn't help at all. All that does is show forth a childish, conceited, bullish attitude.
I have viewed most of the referenced articles given, but it hasn't proven anything. All it has done for me is to further strengthen my view. We are still at square one. I say Noah's Ark is real, you say it's a fairytale. I guess I'll leave it at that.
The important thing is how he proves a global flood, not that he has a PhD.
I don't know if you have the capacity to play a video or not, you know, like, how to click a link to listen to a video? If not, could you have your mom or dad show you?
Clearly not. I will check it out, despite the fact you're grasping for straws with these rhetorical techniques. No need to attack me personally just because I'm on the winning side of this debate.
Ok, Eusebius I actually watched all 26 minutes of that video and Dr. Snelling raised some interesting points. The debate for the formation of the Grand Canyon is one that is still up for debate. While it is true there are dozens of marine fossils mixed with land fossils, this doesn't disprove the fact that these rocks have been dated and estimated to be millions of years old. I feel like Dr. Snelling is not the most reliable of sources because it seems he is taking things found in the Grand Canyon or Tasmania (namely fossils), pointing out a possible explanation which was the Global flood, then saying that it must be True as must be everything else in the Bible. He's simply jumping to conclusions too fast and not thinking rationally. I'd like to shift away from the "did the global flood happen?" debate and back to the OP, "Noah's Ark Has Been Found?" In an interview with CNN, Dr. Finkel discusses a tablet that was brought into his museum from a private citizen. The tablet has been estimated to be about 4000 years old (around the time the Global flood would have occurred. The tablet contains cuneiform writing and he says he has done the best job he could do on deciphering the writing and it displayed instructions for creating the ark mentioned in the Bible. He then goes on to say that the instructions differ from those in the Bible. The tablet which describes the "blueprints" for a round sort of survival or life boat, whereas I'm sure I need not describe the Biblical ark because I assume you're very familiar with it. Later in the interview he explains his views on the ancient flood. It's a mere 4 minutes long. You should give it a view.
I'm sorry, Eusebius, it is just painful. There is just one wrong assertion and half -truth after another. The misuse - catastophism is a swindle. There was an extinction of dinosaurs, yes, but also an extinction before that of reptiles to allow the dinosaurs to dominate. To try to pass this off as evidence for a flood is nonsense.
Now, he may be a geologist, but I don't know what he knows about palaeontology. The work that I have seen does not support the idea of land and sea - animals all being buried together.
I don't mind looking at that particular claim, but I can't let it pass as a given. I am sorry if showing up this scientist who has sidelined his science in favour of Bible -literalist faith, but as a Christian you have no problem forgiving me.
P.s just a quick look at the finds raises a lot of questions. a couple of fossils found in conjunction with some marine fossils is hardly going to overturn the general prevalance of land fossils on land strata and marine in marine strata -and moreover in chronological order.
Clam shells get everywhere, To find them in soil with logs and rats and snails (this was a remark on creation institute site) is hardly proof of a flood. There was also mention of a fea - fossil bed with animal remains.
I followed one of these up and it was most clearly an ancient ocean deposit and one or two bits of animal bone had evidently been washed in.
There is nothing of all creation from Plesiosaurs through to mammoths and humans and their ironwork all in together in one pretty uniform flood deposit globally.
Now you and the trumpet are doing a lot of hooting and howling. That doesn't matter. It does matter that a claim has been made that there is evidence for a flood in some fossil deposits - land and marine fossils together. That is worth looking at. What it is not worth is pretending that merely claiming that it proves a Biblical flood makes your case without any investigation.
So you will forgive me if I don't just take your word or that pf prof Snelling for it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-29-2014 at 11:22 AM..
Ok, Eusebius I actually watched all 26 minutes of that video and Dr. Snelling raised some interesting points. The debate for the formation of the Grand Canyon is one that is still up for debate. While it is true there are dozens of marine fossils mixed with land fossils, this doesn't disprove the fact that these rocks have been dated and estimated to be millions of years old. I feel like Dr. Snelling is not the most reliable of sources because it seems he is taking things found in the Grand Canyon or Tasmania (namely fossils), pointing out a possible explanation which was the Global flood, then saying that it must be True as must be everything else in the Bible. He's simply jumping to conclusions too fast and not thinking rationally. I'd like to shift away from the "did the global flood happen?" debate and back to the OP, "Noah's Ark Has Been Found?" In an interview with CNN, Dr. Finkel discusses a tablet that was brought into his museum from a private citizen. The tablet has been estimated to be about 4000 years old (around the time the Global flood would have occurred. The tablet contains cuneiform writing and he says he has done the best job he could do on deciphering the writing and it displayed instructions for creating the ark mentioned in the Bible. He then goes on to say that the instructions differ from those in the Bible. The tablet which describes the "blueprints" for a round sort of survival or life boat, whereas I'm sure I need not describe the Biblical ark because I assume you're very familiar with it. Later in the interview he explains his views on the ancient flood. It's a mere 4 minutes long. You should give it a view.
I don't mean to cut in on Eusebius, but I also saw that clip on the news, and once again viewed it from your link. It was quite interesting. Some of the things that the reader of the script on this object said were interesting also. He said that it was written by a poet. He also said that it was describing a flood that was very devastating. Then he went on to add his belief that there was no global flood. There also is the shape of the ark as being round rather than oblong. But I have to take into consideration that this object is not a first-hand witness account.
The article itself concentrated on the fact that the ark depicted in this writing was round, and the story was processed in a manner to bring this out as a conflict with the most often described ark. In essence, it was delivered as something that is detrimental to Noah's Ark and debunking it, rather than being looked at as a source of distant knowledge about the Ark and the Flood. This is akin to a story of a wreck that occurred in the neighborhood, where a child was struck by a car, but the child was unhurt and the driver was not at fault. But by the time the story gets around the neighborhood, the driver was a drunken child molester, the child was killed, and the neighbors are up in arms as to why the driver wasn't hanged on the spot for his 'crime'! - You just don't know unless you were there, and the only valid evidence is 'crime scene' evidence and testimony.
I don't want to approach this in that manner. My personal belief is to take the information given with a realization that there may be, and probably are, conflicting ideas as to what the ark was actually shaped like, or if it even occurred. The one thing that it does do, is to show that there WAS a deluge of some sort, and that this event was a part of belief, or legend, and it had been passed down through word of mouth and written form. Archeologists have never found and then completely deciphered anything directly found at the ark site near Ararat in a strictly proper way that I know of, or have been written by the 8 people involved in the actual event. There are items that have been found in the location of Ararat, such as the ship, the anchor stones, the rock-fenced area near that site, the rock house, the altar stone, and the possible grave stones that disappeared, but I haven't heard or seen any comprehensive studies done directly on these things, other than those done by Ron Wyatt, and he really wasn't afforded the necessary time or means to do it comprehensively. A few others were said to have visited the site, but everything was quickly debunked. But whenever an archeological site is found, it takes years of work to bring everything to light, and this has never been completed. One reason for this is that the main body of science that disbelieves this aren't lining up to work on this site, and I don't expect them to. They would be placing their occupation in jeopardy by claiming that they found the Ark. Another problem is the governments involved. Just like any government, when they get involved, things go wrong. This happened in Saudi Arabia, where the real Mont Sinai is. the Saudis have no interest in showing this site to the world, maybe because it would be detrimental to Islam, maybe other reasons. It also is not good for the Egyptian tourist trade that has a large business interest on the site of the mountain on the Sinai Peninsula, and they wouldn't want anything to jeopardize that. Truth often gets slaughtered when it gets in the way of profit.
I'm sorry, Eusebius, it is just painful. There is just one wrong assertion and half -truth after another. The misuse - catastophism is a swindle. There was an extinction of dinosaurs, yes, but also an extinction before that of reptiles to allow the dinosaurs to dominate. To try to pass this off as evidence for a flood is nonsense.
Now, he may be a geologist, but I don't know what he knows about palaeontology. The work that I have seen does not support the idea of land and sea - animals all being buried together.
I don't mind looking at that particular claim, but I can't let it pass as a given. I am sorry if showing up this scientist who has sidelined his science in favour of Bible -literalist faith, but as a Christian you have no problem forgiving me.
P.s just a quick look at the finds raises a lot of questions. a couple of fossils found in conjunction with some marine fossils is hardly going to overturn the general prevalance of land fossils on land strata and marine in marine strata -and moreover in chronological order.
Clam shells get everywhere, To find them in soil with logs and rats and snails (this was a remark on creation institute site) is hardly proof of a flood. There was also mention of a fea - fossil bed with animal remains.
I followed one of these up and it was most clearly an ancient ocean deposit and one or two bits of animal bone had evidently been washed in.
There is nothing of all creation from Plesiosaurs through to mammoths and humans and their ironwork all in together in one pretty uniform flood deposit globally.
Now you and the trumpet are doing a lot of hooting and howling. That doesn't matter. It does matter that a claim has been made that there is evidence for a flood in some fossil deposits - land and marine fossils together. That is worth looking at. What it is not worth is pretending that merely claiming that it proves a Biblical flood makes your case without any investigation.
So you will forgive me if I don't just take your word or that pf prof Snelling for it.
After watching those videos and proving that all around the world that sea creatures were burried at the same time with land animals and land plants and you want me to believe the sea creatures walked around with the dogs and bears etc? You are sick.
Yes. A lot is made of the McMurray anklyosaur. Supposedly found uncrushed and intact 200 metres off the shore. That raised the question of how it could be intact? Fossils tend to be flattened in the course of fossils. Is this really as 'intact' as is claimed? The Creation Institute doesn't give a lot of detail but just presents it as something that ought not to be there. Hint can only be explained by a global flood.
It is not good enough. One intact fossil doth not a Biblical flood make. There could be many scenarios by which a prehistoric beast could end up washed into the sea and buried by mud.
At one time the siberian mammoths were touted around as proof of a flood and a snap freezing afterwards. Again, where are the other prehistoric creatures? The men? The masonry? The cattle? Now it is mentioned as an argument that Creationists should not use.
Don't let yourself go rushing away with these glib claims of animals and fish altogether. It could come back and slam another nail in the Creationist coffin.
Final comment I am sure I can't persuade you and it is after all me you have to convince -you already believe it.
The others here following the wrangle deserve to have both sides of the case put.
I'm sorry, Eusebius, it is just painful. There is just one wrong assertion and half -truth after another. The misuse - catastophism is a swindle. There was an extinction of dinosaurs, yes, but also an extinction before that of reptiles to allow the dinosaurs to dominate. To try to pass this off as evidence for a flood is nonsense.
Now, he may be a geologist, but I don't know what he knows about palaeontology. The work that I have seen does not support the idea of land and sea - animals all being buried together.
I don't mind looking at that particular claim, but I can't let it pass as a given. I am sorry if showing up this scientist who has sidelined his science in favour of Bible -literalist faith, but as a Christian you have no problem forgiving me.
P.s just a quick look at the finds raises a lot of questions. a couple of fossils found in conjunction with some marine fossils is hardly going to overturn the general prevalance of land fossils on land strata and marine in marine strata -and moreover in chronological order.
Clam shells get everywhere, To find them in soil with logs and rats and snails (this was a remark on creation institute site) is hardly proof of a flood. There was also mention of a fea - fossil bed with animal remains.
I followed one of these up and it was most clearly an ancient ocean deposit and one or two bits of animal bone had evidently been washed in.
There is nothing of all creation from Plesiosaurs through to mammoths and humans and their ironwork all in together in one pretty uniform flood deposit globally.
Now you and the trumpet are doing a lot of hooting and howling. That doesn't matter. It does matter that a claim has been made that there is evidence for a flood in some fossil deposits - land and marine fossils together. That is worth looking at. What it is not worth is pretending that merely claiming that it proves a Biblical flood makes your case without any investigation.
So you will forgive me if I don't just take your word or that pf prof Snelling for it.
I have no problem with you either Arequipa, although my handle is Trumpethim, not the trumpet, nor trumpetass.
And one other thing that you may have missed. There weren't just a few marine fossils found in the strata with land fossils. It was in the trillions in just a relatively small examined area, and yet this was found in large areas of land mass in the hundreds of thousands of square miles.
And you're right; you won't find any un-forgiveness in me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) that the creationism debate is not about God -belief. It is about Bible - literalism and especially the battle between the desire to expel the findings of science and replace it with the variously interpreted theories of the creation and Flood - unless it is a 'Scientist' who agrees with it, in which case, that is as good as Holy Writ, even if that same science does not support it.
Snelling's video.
I am sure I can't persuade you and it is after all me you have to convince -you already believe it.
deserve to have both sides of the case put.