No, God can do as He pleases.
The Flood is not presented as a miracle. It is presented and explained as a historical fact. As is all of Genesis 1-11. Jesus and the Apostles performed miracles in this world. Why is there any need to invoke parallel worlds?
Magnificent!
With this statement you ground to powder âGalileoâs Golden Calfâ and worship the âtrue Godâ of quantum physics.
No equation can fit all phenomena contained in Godâs mind, as for instance Fatimaâs miracle of the sun watched by 70â000 people.
However ordinarily God likes to shape the world according to the Newtonâs equations, so that we can predict it, develop technologies, travel to Moon, and behave rationally.
For this reason I like to say that Fatimaâs miracle on October 13, 1917, 2 pm, teaches us something important we often overlook:
What 2 billion people outside Fatima watched at the same time, i.e.: the sun following its usual trajectory, is as great a miracle as the dancing sun.
You raise an interesting point.
In line with Jim Stump, I endorse the following position:
In Genesis the Flood is certainly presented and explained as a historical fact but also as something miraculous.
So for instance Noah begins to build the Ark following the command of the Lord and thereby miraculously predicts that the Flood will come, very much like the three shepherd-children in Fatima miraculously predicted one month before that a miracle would happen at Cova da Iria.
Moreover Jesus Christ himself (Matthew 24:29, 37â39; Luke 17:26â29) and the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:5-6, 3:6) compare the Flood to events like the darkening of the Sun and falling of stars at the End Times, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and sulfur rained down from heaven.
Fatimaâs miracle also is undoubtedly an historical fact. Suppose that when it happened the only observers on earth were the 70â000 people watching the dancing sun, so that no alternative account from observers outside Fatima had been available for comparison. Then the witnesses of the miracle would have narrated things as if the sun had danced for any possible observer on earth.
In this line of thinking I argue that the only Image Bearers who survived the Flood were Noah and his family. Consequently they had no alternative report from non-flooded Image Bearers and presented things as a historical fact affecting the whole world.
For many miracles there is no need to invoke parallel worlds.
But in miracles like the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor and the conversion of Paul the Apostle two parallel worlds are clearly present during a time.
And Pentecost (Acts 2:4-20) provides unquestionable evidence for âmany-parallel-worldsâ in the sense of people of many different native languages hearing the same speech in the own tongue!
If I have estimated correctly, the area around Mount St. Helens affected by the May 18, 1980 eruption was about 1000 square km. The total surface area of Earth is about 510 million square km. This means that to produce a catastrophe comparable to Noahâs Flood as narrated in Genesis you would need a minimum of 510â000 Mounts St. Helen.
On the other hand, it is fitting to assume that Gods acts according to the parsimony principle also in performing miracles.
Therefore explaining Noahâs Flood invoking two parallel worlds like for Fatimaâs Miracle of the Sun seems more appropriate than a single world with a â510â000 Mounts St. Helenâ catastrophe.
The worldâs surface area is 510 million square kilometers? As big as that sounds⌠the world is still not big enough to fit both me and the Bibleâs version of the global flood!
Hi George
This is the reason why I propose an explanation with two parallel worlds: To fit the Bibleâs version of the global flood in one world and you in the other one! 
Itâs good that youâve made that clear, but just one piece of advice here: if you donât want to be called a YECer, donât use bad YEC arguments.
Whenever anyone round here sees words such as âwere you there?â or âuniformitarianism,â they automatically swap it out for âIâve been reading too much Ken Ham.â
And with the never ending stream of YEC people that kind of float through here it does get hard to remember peopleâs core principle.
Ok. Hereâs where Iâll hold up a large dresser mirror, and tell youâ and all the other proponents of evolution hereâŚ
Donât use bad evolution arguments.
Whenever people claim that evolution is the cause, when the bible has clearly stated that God created the heavens and the earth, and he did so in 6 days, and subsequent passages state that he spoke everything into existence, that Jesus is responsible for creating everything, and without him, nothing that exists, could exist, and that he holds it all together by the word of his powerâ to say that these things are not true, is only embarrassing yourselves.
Aside from calling the only person who can save you a liar, youâre just throwing crap on your own faces, and then accusing us of being the ones doing so.
Hereâs the thing.
I am not a YEC.
I am a bible-believing follower of Jesus. Been one since 1977. I studied physics at the state university, and actually kept a decent GPA throughout, love cosmology, and have been reading the bible, and learning to apply it in my daily life for 40 years now. Iâve been learning a lot, and donât actually have a problem with the ideas I presently adhere to. Hereâs a secret for youâ if I had a problem with my ideas, I wouldnât be so comfortable with them.
I did not come to this position easily. I have not had a flower-covered pathway to this day in my life. I donât float on lilies, or walk floating on rose petals. I donât have a halo on my head and glow like the paintings of old.
Another problem I have with evolution is the claim that people only believe what science can prove. The problem with that isâ the scientific method is based on repeatability.
History is not repeatable, but no one appears to grasp so simple a fact, so I ask what seem so obvious and patent a set of stupid questions to get you to grasp the sheer stupidity of claiming to believe in the scientific method. You cannot repeat whatever the event was that resulted in the existence of the cosmos. You cannot repeat the process by which the biological life forms we now know on earth came into existence. You cannot repeat the process by which you drank your coffee last year, which resulted in you getting the raise you did, 4 weeks later.
The problem isâ evolutionists seem to fail to grasp these fundamental ideas, and as a result claim that evolution, climate change, and a few other ideas are âsettled science.â
To which people such as myself do the age old-- face-palm, seriously questioning the understanding of these people. It makes me wonder if theyâre smoking the whiskey, and drinking the weed.
Admittedly, it is indeed bothersome that God kept so many secrets, and only gave us what we needed to live. Deuteronomy 29:29 (and yes, I actually do expect you to read these references I provide, because I expect Iâm talking to an intelligent human being, who wants to understand where I get my ideas, as much as he wants to be understood.).
In the end, Iâve come to the realization that I will die in another 30-40 years, if not sooner. Iâve further looked back at the forebears of the realm of science, indeed my own family, and the people whoâve come before, and noticed that none of them, have lived longer than 120 years. Iâve found this incredibly frustrating, because the logic of the evolutionist/atheist/agnostic is that if I canât do it myself, it cannot be trusted, unless someone whose views agree with mine has done the purported work.
Thankfully, the bible actually tells me to test it for myself. Acts 17:11, and 1 Thess. 5:21-22, as well as many others. (I.e., where do you think the idea originated from? It wasnât Aristotle.).
So⌠itâs not that weâre using bad arguments, itâs that weâre trying to find a way to get you to see just how bad the claims and arguments for evolution are, and the only way weâre finding so far is to show you by means of a mirror. I.e., we mirror your practice.
I donât entirely think itâs a good idea, because it just keeps going around in circles.
So, here are a few things for you to read. And if you donât have a bible, hereâs a free, online version. blb.org
Deut 29:29, Ps 25:14, Ps 147:11, Prov 25:2, 1 cor. 13:12, Heb. 4:13, Gen 1:1, Ps 33:5-9, John 1:1-3, 14, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:15-19, Heb. 1:2-4.
The ideas presented in these passages make it pretty clear to me that thereâs no evolution involved. These are direct, creative actions, which involve intellect, reason, logic, invention, design, understanding, and comprehension beyond our faculty to fathom.
So⌠how do you want to handle this? Iâve studied the scienceâ itâs an idea. Itâs not repeatable. Itâs history. It requires a worldview to interpret it, and if the worldview is incorrect, the data will be interpreted incorrectly, resulting in the wrong understanding.
For me, what evolutionists claim is evidence for evolution, I see as evidence for creation. The frustration for the evolutionist then becomesâ well, why didnât God put a âmade by God on xx/xx/xxxxâ label or stamp on it somewhere?
The reason being obvious to the bible believerâ he didnât need to. Romans 1:18-23.
Weâre the oneâs in darkness, stuck on our own ignorance, claiming to be so wise and brilliant. So much so, they do whatever they can to dismiss, discount, and ignore what they donât want to see.
Steve, youâve got me confused here. You claim youâre not a YEC, yet youâre coming out with a string of YEC-isms that sound like they could have come straight from Ken Hamâs blog.
For starters, youâre using the words âevolutionâ and âatheismâ as if they were interchangeable. They arenât. I also get the impression that youâre using the word âevolutionâ as an umbrella term for anything and everything about science that you donât agree with. This is a straight-down-the-line YEC-ism; it is also a form of equivocation (using the same word to mean two different things in the same argument) that ascribes views to many of us on this forum that we simply do not hold.
For the record, I do not take the line that âevolution is a fact; get over it.â If thereâs one thing Iâve learned about evolution, it is that it is not a single, indivisible, take-it-or-leave-it monolith. On the contrary, it is a complex, multi-faceted subject, and while there are some aspects of it that are indisputable facts, there are other aspects of it that I would be inclined to dispute. I donât agree, for example, that we should view ourselves as humans as âjust another animalâ â evolution or not, the Bible tells us that we are created in the image of God, and as such, we have been given an authority and a responsibility as stewards over Godâs creation that has not been given to the rest of the animal kingdom.
No, everyone does grasp this simple fact. What the âwere you thereâ crowd fail to grasp is that history leaves evidence behind, and studies of the evidence are repeatable. For example, you can come up with a hypothesis about how rocks were formed in the Grand Canyon, but your hypothesis also needs to work in the Scottish Highlands, the South African Drakensbergs, and the Swiss Alps. Different dating methods are routinely and rigorously cross-checked against each other. When Ar-Ar dating gives the same results as U-Pb dating, Rb-Sr dating, counting of lake varves, successive layering of rock strata, and GPS measurements of continental drift, that is repeatability.
If you expect us to read these references that you provide, it would help greatly if you could either quote them inline, or at the very least, provide hyperlinks direct to the specific verses themselves on, for example, BibleGateway.com. Yes, you are talking to intelligent human beings, but you are also talking to intelligent human beings for whom time is not an unlimited resource, and besides the fact that looking up these references takes time and breaks up the flow of your argument, telling us that you expect us to do so without making any effort to reduce the friction in doing so is, quite frankly, rude.
Itâs just amazing how far a topic can run! From a Mesopotamian flood myth to particle physics and back again. So can I (50 years a Trinitarian) throw in my two pennyworth?
The Bible was not written until the 4th Century CE (by Jerome). All that existed before then were the scrolls of the Jewish Tanakh, a number of gospels and a collection of letters. The New Testament was formalised by Athanasius in 367.
There is only one ocean in the world, so any changes to that affect the whole world.
At some point between 10000BCE - the end of the last major ice age - and the Egyptian pyramids being constructed (about 2500 BCE?), the English Channel was created, separating the UK from France.
The channel is about four hundred feet deep, suggesting a world-wide flood; but this does not mean that it topped out Mt Everest (around 29000ft).
According to Herodotus, the Egyptians believed that ther had been three major floods.
The name Mesopotamia means âbetween the two riversâ (I believe), which were known to flood regularly because of the sandy soil.
The 1st Chapter of Genesis was probably written after Solomon, when Israel and Judah split. It possibly refers to a Canaanite belief in the trinity of EL, his consort and his son Baâall, along with the Divine Council.
I am not an Academic, but I read a lot.
Most of the people on this site do not believe in atheistic evolution which is what you keep talking about. We all believe God created the heavens and the earth (length of time required is not important). He did speak everything into existence (but if it was literally that quick why did it take 6 literal days?) Jesus is responsible for creating everything (do you think evolution really could have done the amazing work that it accomplished without the guidance of Jesus?) No one here has every said these things are not true. We just donât agree on exactly how long it took to accomplish this. Is that really that big of a problem?
Are you sure? You sure sound like a YEC. How many Old Earther Creationists do you know who asserts the âsheer stupidityâ of those who support the scientific method? [See belowâŚ]
Hmmm⌠So⌠when physicists all over the world replicate the double-slit interference results using something as chaotic as photons or electrons⌠thatâs an accidental repeatability?
And if we find one kind of fossil at a low layer of rock, and a similar, but different fossil in a high layer of rock⌠when we hypothesize the kind of creature fossil we will find in the intervening rock between the two samples⌠when the prediction turns out to be true⌠thatâs a complete accident as well?
Sorry George (I hope I can call you that?), but rocks move, and are turned upside down. Older rocks are frequently found above younger rocks, and there is are beautiful examples where layers of solid rock form s shapes that lay on their side. If I were a geologist, I would have real problems deciding which is the oldest. It is fairly logical that these layers were moulded at a time when they were molten.
After fifty years as a Christian, I started taking an interest in every aspect of life (polymath) and have to say that there are stranger things that we will never understand without the help of specialist scientists who spend years studying what is often boring stuff for the rest of humanity.
I just hope we are all live long enough to discover where the eleven (or twenty-two) dimensions of quantum physics are or even if they really exist.
The folding doesnât prevent you from telling which rock layers are older. You just have to make careful observations of the rock layers.
You can tell from the geometry of the fold which layers were solid and which were still soft at the time of the folding. Soft layers slump when they are folded. Also soft layers wouldnât crack when folded and hardened layers would, which is what is seen.
Exceptions happen everywhere ⌠including the tribe of Simeon being part of the 10 tribes of Israel⌠and yet being a part of, or south of, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
If you were a geologist, you would be able to detect anomalies, and you probably wouldnât have introduced your discussion with a collection of non-sequiturs as an apologia for @Steve_Buckleyâs non-sequiturs.
Just floating ideas that sometimes are a puzzle to me.
The rocks I remember were in individual layers, moulded like toffee, and as far as I could see, must have been soft when they were moulded. There could be no other way. Itâs a pity I donât have a picture, it would make more sense.
I am not enough of a scholar to understand non-secitur, could you explain please?
Heat and pressure makes hard things fluid enough to bend, and these rocks were deep,beneath the earth when the slow gradual bending took place, though if too hot, turned to metamorphic rock, if I understand correctly.
@Denn There is a short article in Wikipedia that covers rock folds. It includes several pictures. You will see that geologists are aware of the type of fold in soft sediment that you are talking about. It just doesnât explain all rock folds.
He is a believer in miracles, looking for the most comfortable fit in the world of facts.
Catholicism has always emphasized the mysteries of the faith.
Are you referring to this claim by Answers in Genesis?
They claim that the rock layers are folded without fracturing. This claim is demonstrably untrue â there are other photographs both on the USGS website and on Answers in Genesis itself that show the rock fold in question as being clearly fractured. In fact, if you look closely at the AIG photo, youâll see it has people in it, standing right in front of the most prominent fractures.
I examined the claim (and the photographs) here:
For what itâs worth, how hard rock layers have to be in order to deform like that is strongly dependent on scale. At that size (about 30 metres tall) they would have to be much, much harder than toffee (and deformed over a much longer timescale), otherwise you would see considerable slumping. Deformations that form when rocks are still soft and plastic are less than a metre in height.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.