“Of the many times I have posted it (including twice before in this thread), not one YEC has ever addressed it:”
Yeah, I see you, Dale. You remind me of a golden retriever puppy excitedly jumping around with a ball in his mouth, trying to get someone to throw it for him.
But this matter belongs to a different thread: one focused on the age of the earth.
I would like for us to focus on the OP.
Forums that just chase rabbits (even if they catch one or two) are not conducive to actual learning from one another.
And so, you believe that the flooding waters of the Sauk transgression somehow managed to hold in suspension 3 million cubic kilometers of sediments, very, very, very gradually depositing it over 75% of North America…as these flooding waters crept across the continent at 1/4 inch per year?
And, you believe that the flooding waters of the Sauk transgression were able to erode even large boulders out of basement granite–thus forming the Great Unconformity–as they “blazed” across the craton, going…1/4 inch per year (the velocity in keeping with a 5 million year deposition of sediments)?
Sediments slowly eroded off of the continent and were transported to the slowly encroaching inland sea where they slowly deposited, exactly the same process that is occurring right now in all large bodies of water. Take a look at any modern river delta for an example.
You are assuming the encroaching waters were responsible for the erosion of the Great Unconformity.
We would probably agree on the “data”–but probably not agree on the process that explains the data…and the significance of this process.
But, here in 2 Peter 3, Peter’s discussion of evidence “hiding itself” addresses the very real effect that ones desires and attitude have on his beliefs. These were people who “mocked”–ridiculed God and His promises. Furthermore, they were people who were set on living for their own pleasures (“following after their own lusts”)–no matter where that might take them! And so, they didn’t want God getting in their way.
Therefore…determined to get God (and the Judgment Day, 2 Peter 3:4–“His coming”) completely out of their thoughts, they somehow just couldn’t “see” the evidence of God’s having judged the world before, in the Flood.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
368
I don’t believe. I know. I know that there are fully, completely, totally natural explanations for all phenomena. 3 million cubic kilometers (sic) of sediments over 5 million years is 0.6 cubic kilometres a year suspended in a sea with a volume of one hundred thousand cubic kilometres (the transgression area). 6 ppm per year. Nothing.
Over the millions of cubic miles of the sea in total, 75% of N. America’s ten million square miles with an average depth of what, being a shallow sea, 1000 feet? A generous cubic mile of sediment is less than nothing. 500 feet is 1 ppm.
I don’t “abandon the scientific method” when talking about purely natural events or processes.
But biblical Creation, for example, is not described as being “natural”–but, instead, supernatural. “God spoke–and it was done!”…fiat Creation…is what Scripture teaches. Such a process–an expressly supernatural process–is not under the purview of science.
It doesn’t mean that the Creation event was not real. It just means that science cannot account for it–for the simple fact that science limits itself to study of only natural events and processes.
Here is where, I believe, theistic evolutionists have missed the boat. They see that Genesis 1 cannot be naturally explained, and so reject it–because it is not “scientific.” They don’t seem to realize that the supernatural is just as REAL as the natural…but it cannot be explained (or denied) by science. And, really, true scientists realize that supernatural events are not subject to scientific investigation.
Scientists who teach that the only realities are scientifically determined have degenerated science into a faith system, called “scientism.”
I agree with your words, we must always have an honest attitude toward evidence…that we must always love truth, no matter where it takes us. It’s a very fine sentiment, something to live by.
But throughout this entire thread, you demonstrate that this is not what you believe.
You have confused “truth” for your interpretation of the Bible that requires you (and everyone else) to conclude a certain end, before you even look at evidence. Thus, the evidence is irrelevant in your thinking.
You consistently reinterpret evidence to confirm the conclusion you established before you began.
Anyone should be able to follow the evidence, whether they’ve read the Bible or not, and if they have, whether they interpret as you do or differently. The real evidence doesn’t hide.
However, the fore-established conclusion hides from all sorts of people, even Christians, who don’t begin with the same conclusion that you do.
Glancing over this thread, I’ve seen you imply terrible things about brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with you and accuse intelligent, truthful experts in their areas of dishonesty and worse. This is simply unethical.
5 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
371
Science does not have to discount what was never counted in.
Check 8:20. “Clean” relates to those animals to be sacrificed to God–this was the meaning both before and after the Flood.
But the bigger concern I have is that you, again, seem bent upon ridiculing the word of God. Do you reject the Bible as recording historical events–or just some historical events?
“Elohim” and “Jahweh” are used interchangeably throughout the Flood account.
For example, Genesis 7:5–"And Noah did according to all that the Lord (YAHWEH) had commanded him. Then, 7:9–“there went into the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, as God (ELOHIM) had commanded Noah.”
And so, throughout the account. As I said, you’ve bought into a myth.
I didn’t say the sediments were created rapidly. I said the whales were buried rapidly, completely, and deeply under the ocean sediments. Actually, many authorities stress that such a burial is necessary for fossilization to occur–in fact, “rapid” is the very word they usually use. Are you questioning this?
When you say, “If the oceans were already on the craton…” are you referring to the inland (or “epeiric”) seas–calling them “oceans”? Or, what are you referring to by “oceans” here?