New Posts For Thread: Floods are not the mechanism that produces fossilshttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossilsIn Queensland, Australia, in 2011 and in 2012 there has been extensive and disastrous flood the summers of both years. i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq79/Sociali...Yet neither of these floods has produced any fossils, which we would expect if what CreaLucaspa:"A major theological truth it was trying to tell was that the Babylonian gods do not exist."How is that a "theological truth"?http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518989417#518989417Lucaspa:"A major theological truth it was trying to tell was that the Babylonian gods do not exist."How is that a "theological truth"?Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:44:54 -0500That's going too far. Yes, Iama's exegesis of geography is wrong, and I'll demonstrate that, but you can't say "none of the people; none of the events". You simply don't know whether Abraham existed, or Joseph, for instance. Did Abraham try to sacrhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518988167#518988167That's going too far. Yes, Iama's exegesis of geography is wrong, and I'll demonstrate that, but you can't say "none of the people; none of the events". You simply don't know whether Abraham existed, or Joseph, for instance. Did Abraham try to sacrTue, 24 Apr 2012 17:57:05 -0500I gather you did not see my tongue securely planted in my cheek as I typed.http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518976305#518976305I gather you did not see my tongue securely planted in my cheek as I typed.Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:15:41 -0500The YECs in the 1700s did make an argument that a single flood formed the entire geological column. By 1800 scientists (all of whom were Christians) had eliminated most of the geological column as having been caused by a flood. By the mid-1820s Revhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518976211#518976211The YECs in the 1700s did make an argument that a single flood formed the entire geological column. By 1800 scientists (all of whom were Christians) had eliminated most of the geological column as having been caused by a flood. By the mid-1820s RevTue, 24 Apr 2012 14:12:58 -0500LOL! That's never sufficient, even for creationists. "Goddidit" tells us nothing. What must follow that is "how Godiddit". Flood Geology is a "how Goddidit". According to Flood Geology, God caused all the sedimentary rocks and the fossils in themhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518975915#518975915LOL! That's never sufficient, even for creationists. "Goddidit" tells us nothing. What must follow that is "how Godiddit". Flood Geology is a "how Goddidit". According to Flood Geology, God caused all the sedimentary rocks and the fossils in themTue, 24 Apr 2012 14:06:42 -0500That fact was presented to show you there was enough water. It is a FACT.Keep in mind the bible does not suggest a completely smooth topography of the planet earth. [/quote]It most certainly doesn't suggest a smooth topography. In fact, it suggestshttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518975669#518975669That fact was presented to show you there was enough water. It is a FACT.Keep in mind the bible does not suggest a completely smooth topography of the planet earth. [/quote]It most certainly doesn't suggest a smooth topography. In fact, it suggestsTue, 24 Apr 2012 14:01:52 -0500Unfortunately for you, not one word of the book of Genesis is true. Not one. None of the people it mentions existed; none of the events it describes happened.[/quote]That's going too far. Yes, Iama's exegesis of geography is wrong, and I'll demonstrhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518975377#518975377Unfortunately for you, not one word of the book of Genesis is true. Not one. None of the people it mentions existed; none of the events it describes happened.[/quote]That's going too far. Yes, Iama's exegesis of geography is wrong, and I'll demonstrTue, 24 Apr 2012 13:53:16 -0500iama: You may recall that water can absorb a lot of heat, and that it gives up that heat slowly. That fact is speculated by creation scientists as the cause of the Ice AgeHoD: There you go speculating again.http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518971115#518971115iama: You may recall that water can absorb a lot of heat, and that it gives up that heat slowly. That fact is speculated by creation scientists as the cause of the Ice AgeHoD: There you go speculating again.Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:59:18 -0500iama: I answer that in the following:iama: You are forgetting the processes which cause sedimentary layers to become sedimentary rock. Also, sedimentary rocks can become metamorphic rocks. The pressures caused by the mountain-building activities,http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518964753#518964753iama: I answer that in the following:iama: You are forgetting the processes which cause sedimentary layers to become sedimentary rock. Also, sedimentary rocks can become metamorphic rocks. The pressures caused by the mountain-building activities,Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:02:18 -0500They are not "presuppositions" and they are not wrong. They are conclusions and they are the hardest of facts. You cannot reject them without rejecting science in its entirety. And that's exactly what you want to do. Like all creationists, you want thttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/29046167/Floods_are_not_the_mechanism_that_produces_fossils?post_id=518952755#518952755They are not "presuppositions" and they are not wrong. They are conclusions and they are the hardest of facts. You cannot reject them without rejecting science in its entirety. And that's exactly what you want to do. Like all creationists, you want tMon, 23 Apr 2012 20:52:38 -0500