We are all very aware of those organizations. We are also very aware that their claims are contradicted by mountains of evidence. They are wrong.[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:444, topic:36256”]
The false dichotomy is the same logic a flat-earther would use against a scientist telling him about interplanetary motion: “But if the earth is moving, then God is deceitful because it appears still to me.”
[/quote]
In this scenario, you are the flat-earther.
How was Noah’s flood a supernatural phenomenon? Are you saying that God made the flood violate the laws of physics so that it created a fossil record that looks just like life evolved?
I get that, and I don’t mind your saying that you think they’re wrong. But when you act like they don’t exist, I have to wonder what’s motivating you.
On the contrary, I’m willing to accept the counsel of someone who knows more than I do about what I’m seeing.
Have their been other global floods I’ve missed?
No, I’m saying you don’t have regular occurrences of such a phenomenon to study and thus make predictions.
The explanations from those YEC organizations are based on naturalistic processes, so we also have to wonder why you would cite them to begin with.[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:448, topic:36256”]
On the contrary, I’m willing to accept the counsel of someone who knows more than I do about what I’m seeing.
[/quote]
And yet you reject the conclusions made by hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last 200 years because it conflicts with your reading of Genesis. I don’t consider that to be very willing.
I would just say the first. Noah’s Flood is more of an interpretation problem, i.e. it was a regional not a global flood.
I did, but will put it in-line here to be absolutely clear.
What do I consider those (your list of miracles) to be? A historical record of a miraculous event for which we can trust the record.
So are you saying there is no evidence at all in creation that it took longer than 144 consecutive hours? Or are you saying that if creation was a miracle we shouldn’t expect to find evidence that it did take more than 144 hours and anything we do find should not be trusted? Exactly what would you expect to see after a six day creation? A miracle for which the physical evidence still exists.
Did you ever take a look at these?
Antoine’s Treatment of Original Sin
Antoine’s theory about the flood
God could certainly have crated the earth supernaturally over 6 days. The problem then becomes explaining why He left all this evidence that says He didn’t. You want to make supernatural creation a magic wand that overcomes all problems but it doesn’t. Not when we have the results of that magic wand staring us in the face. Simple question, if God created in 6 days 6000 years ago how do you explain the size of the universe? Did he create it complete with a false history of it’s age?
I don’t have time to get into an exegesis of those two verses with you, but it’s beyond tenuous to insist that they prima facie rebut my position.
That is not what I asked. How was Noah’s flood a supernatural phenomenon?[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:449, topic:36256”]
No, I’m saying you don’t have regular occurrences of such a phenomenon to study and thus make predictions.
[/quote]
We observe floods all of the time. We know that floods do not sort animals so that they produce a false history of evolution. We know that floods do not sort igneous rocks so that the isotopes in those rocks y correlate with a specific groups of animals. We know that the fossil record can not be a product of a single flood.
You’re saying it was the result of natural processes?
I don’t know of anyone who suggests that it is.
Not like this one.
Look, guys, if you want to have dog fights, please do it with someone else. I’ve made it clear that I am not qualified to defend the Henry Morris thesis (for lack of a better term). I have also made it clear that I came to BioLogos to learn, not to argue. If you want to bark me into submission, I’ll just go away.
I am asking you. How was Noah’s flood a supernatural process?[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:454, topic:36256”]
I don’t know of anyone who suggests that it is.
[/quote]
I know of at least one person, Mike Gantt.[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:454, topic:36256”]
Not like this one.
[/quote]
Every flood is different. That doesn’t stop us from knowing that floods can’t produce the fossil record we see.[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:454, topic:36256”]
Look, guys, if you want to have dog fights, please do it with someone else. I’ve made it clear that I am not qualified to defend the Henry Morris thesis (for lack of a better term). I have also made it clear that I came to BioLogos to learn, not to argue. If you want to bark me into submission, I’ll just go away.
[/quote]
I am not trying to bark you into submission. I am trying to see if there is a consistent position somewhere in your posts. Thus far, I can’t tell if fossils are the result of the initial creation, a supernatural flood, or a natural flood. You say that we can’t predict what a supernatural event would produce, yet you seem to indicate that fossils are the result of natural processes, so I am confused as to where you stand on this subject.
If you have been following this thread, I would say that you are feigning ignorance. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and repeat some things that I have said multiple times.
I am, for all practical purposes, scientifically illiterate. I’m not hear to discuss or learn science. I take your word for it that the scientific evidence strongly points you to an old earth.
If creation was indeed accomplished in six days, then it would seem to me that the case the YEC movement makes for Noah’s Flood being a primary (which means ipso facto “not the only”) cause for the fossil record is probably right. However, because of 1., I am not the one to make or defend that case.
If you are saying you’re unaware of the YEC case, then you’re sending me back to thinking you’re feigning ignorance.
I know you guys think the YEC guys are all wrong about the flood. I don’t expect you to say otherwise. But I think you go too far to act like they don’t exist.
Net-net: If you want to argue the flood and the fossil record, please go to the YEC guys.
However, since this flood occurred after the initial creation then it would be a natural process and could be tested for using scientific principles, correct?[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:456, topic:36256”]
If you are saying you’re unaware of the YEC case, then you’re sending me back to thinking you’re feigning ignorance.
[/quote]
I am aware that they try to argue for a recent global flood using naturalistic arguments which you seem to be saying can’t apply because Noah’s flood is either supernatural or happened only once. This is where I get a bit confused. You seem to be saying that it was a supernatural event, but then change your mind and are now saying that it was a one time event which isn’t the same thing. If a baseball pitcher throws only 1 no hitter in his lifetime I don’t consider that to be a supernatural event, so I am trying to figure out how those two things are related.
As you’ve been told before many times by quite a few people now, none of these are analogous to the situation of the age of the earth, because none of these miracles left a long chain of fake evidence for a history which never existed.
Because if supernatural processes were involved we would not expect everything to leave a huge chain of evidence for a fake history which never existed.
I gave you biblical testimony, the same biblical testimony which convinced some commentators in the pre-modern era, that Adam and Eve were not the first humans.
No, because God has left us a huge range of evidence that the earth is not still.
This is the problem you need to address, right here.
If a man doesn’t want to agree with something… it really doesn’t matter what his reason is.
None of the writings of these groups have explained how 100% of the giant Brachiosaurs all drowned before giraffes, bears or humans drowned.
You are carrying water for these groups with imaginary buckets.
Hi all: I’m butting into this 100,000 word discussion, forgive my arrogance please. If you believe in god and the bible, then don’t bother yourself with scientific inquiry. You’ve committed yourself to supernatural explanations. Whether the supernatural explanations are the creation of the universe or the resurrection, it is no matter. You as a christian believer must believe all if you believe a little.
Ultimately, even after socratic discussion, a christian is forced to accept that “god did it”. And that’s that.
Neither would I. However, if there had only been one no-hitter ever thrown in the history of baseball, and it was preceded by God saying there would be this no-hitter thrown by this pitcher, and followed by God saying there would never again be a no-hitter thrown by any pitcher, and no one had ever seen or heard of a no-hitter by any pitcher in the thousands of years that followed, then I might think it was fair to call that no-hitter supernatural.
My understanding is that the YEC folks seek to integrate the supernatural (the Bible) and the natural (what science studies). Whether they would call their arguments for the flood “naturalistic,” you would have to take up with them. My point is that since science focuses on studying natural processes (methodological naturalism), I don’t see how you can claim that it should be able to discover or predict a supernatural event.
No, to use your words, you gave me your interpretation of the Bible. It’s unfair of you to call your interpretations of the Bible “biblical testimony,” but call others’ interpretations of the Bible “their interpretations of the Bible.”
As I’ve said, this is a false dichotomy, and it’s the way flat-earthers talk. “If the earth is not still, then God has deceived us.”
I’m not carrying water for them. I’m just acknowledging that they exist, and that they might be right - however small you deem the probability.
No, I gave you actual Biblical testimony. What the text says is indisputable. It’s so indisputable that thousands of commentators have agreed about what it appears to be saying. Consequently, thousands of commentators have interpreted it in various ways to try and reconcile it with a young earth or young creation of humans while contradicting the scientific evidence, while other commentators have interpreted it differently, and consequently had no conflict with science at all.
You need to explain why it is a false dichotomy to say that God left a pile of evidence that says He did not create the earth supernaturally in only six days. Why is it a false dichotomy to say this? What flat earthers say is a false dichotomy because there’s an actual false dilemma in their statement. In my statement there is no dilemma; there’s no dichotomy at all, false or otherwise.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.