Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[CoreyD]

The source material is the earth itself as you will see below. The Earth can not lie

What do you mean the earth does not lie?
Are you saying people will all look at the earth and see the truth?
Would that not mean that scientists do not need to interpret the evidence?
How could that be?
The only way that can happen, is if every bit of evidence was direct evidence, and that is not the case.

Most evidence... especially in the past, is circumstantial, which means interpretation... which means room for error, and wrong conclusions... which is why science never reaches a foregone conclusion that is not constantly being reviewed, and oftentimes overturned, and replaced.

Volcano's are a great example as we can study their eruption history. The Lava flows of the Pacific Northwest for instance are well studied. There were more than 350 individual flows from about 17.7 million years ago to about 5.5 million years ago that erupted in eastern Oregon. One flow ran more than 300 miles to the Pacific Ocean. In another area it is 2 miles deep. Than we have the Yellowstone Hotspot that began in southern Oregon 16 million years ago and burned it's way to it's present location as the North American Plate moved westward over it.

And than in Central Oregon we have a mostly eroded mountain range that's left behind a lot of interesting geological evidence. What's left are volcano roots and a lot of colorful ash deposits and other geology. Buried in the ash are the John Day Fossil Beds which is well know for it's well preserved layers of fossil plants and animals that lived about 45 million years ago. As plate seduction moved westward, the present Cascade mountains began to form about 36 million years ago. During an active volcanic activity 5 million years ago more than 3000 vents erupted. It was about 1.6 million years ago that the major peaks begin to form. I've climbed most of them. Rainer was a bit out of my league.

About floods, we also have the Ice Age floods 10,000 years ago that flowed from Montana across northern Idaho, down the western side of Washington state and down the Columbia river. On it's way to the Pacific Ocean it filled up the Willamette Valley which stretches 100 miles down the west side of Oregon. I live in the Willamette Valley. The water in that flood was a good 200 feet over the roof of my house. It's my membership and field trips with the Ice Age Flood Institute where I learned about the geology of floods.

No where in all of this geology are there any signs of a global Noah flood. None...Zilch...Nothing. Period!

Here's a link on the Columbia River Basalt Group for your reading. Columbia River Basalt Group Stretches from Oregon to Idaho | U.S. Geological Survey

And here's a link to the Ice Age Floods Institute
Ice Age Floods Institute

Here's a Wiki link to the John Day Fossil Bed National Monument.
John Day Fossil Beds National Monument - Wikipedia

Can I just ask you one question, please.
If a couple years from now, you heard that half of these, or more, were wrong/misinterpreted/assumed to be/believed to be, as new evidence surfaced, would you say the earth lied, or would you be willing to admit that how evidence is interpreted can be wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean the earth does not lie?

Lamberth is a panentheist.

 

[CoreyD]

Not even close.

Ordinary people aren't qualified to create a scientific template.

Would you advocate using the janitor to develop a template for the microcode that runs the mechanical arm that assists in heart surgery?

Scientists are still people.
What I am saying is that, I would not say scientists do this, because I know of scientist who don't.

Even though religious people rape children, would I be right to say religious people set a bad example by raping children?
Would that not be like saying all religious people are terrible, and everyone else is good?
Do you see what I mean?

 

[CoreyD]

Yes they would recognize it if the evidence existed. The geology of floods are well understood.
In the early days of geology there was a concerted effort to find such evidence. They came up empty handed and had to acknowledged that no such flood existed.

So they are always right. Is that what you are saying?
Would you like me to show you they are not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists are still people.
What I am saying is that, I would not say scientists do this, because I know of scientist who don't.

Even though religious people rape children, would I be right to say religious people set a bad example by raping children?
Would that not be like saying all religious people are terrible, and everyone else is good?
Do you see what I mean?

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

Scientists are the ones who set the industry standards.

And ... after all ... that makes sense.

You wouldn't want an auto mechanic setting the standards used by the FDA, would you?

 

[CoreyD]

The knowledge that scientist open up is about what the Earth presents to them.

I would say, what they think/believe the earth presents to them.
I can show you some examples, if you would like me to.

Many scientist, as your aware, are Christians who because of their faith are not against the Bible.

I know scientist who, because of the evidence, are not against the Bible. Some were atheists, before they accepted what the Bible says, but because of what they saw, both in the natural world, and their examination of the Bible, they acquired faith.

 

[CoreyD]

The scientific method.

I don't see how the scientific method is used against the Bible, unless it is misused, or abused, and I don't believe serious scientist who don't promote their biases do this.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know scientist who, because of the evidence, are not against the Bible. Some were atheists, before they accepted what the Bible says, but because of what they saw, both in the natural world, and their examination of the Bible, they acquired faith.

But the big question is:

Did they do it in spite of science ... or with respect to it?

Let's take the Grand Canyon as an example.

All an unregenerate scientist can do -- assuming he adheres to science only -- is see a beautiful geological phenomenon.

On the other hand, a born again scientist can see further, and see the Grand Canyon as a horrible tear in God's perfect creation due to sin.

 

[CoreyD]

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

Scientists are the ones who set the industry standards.

And ... after all ... that makes sense.

You wouldn't want an auto mechanic setting the standards used by the FDA, would you?

I do understand what you are saying, but I think you need to understand what I am saying.
An auto mechanic repairs cars. If someone uses that to attack FDA, that person is the one who set that standard. not the mechanic, imo.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see how the scientific method is used against the Bible, unless it is misused, or abused, and I don't believe serious scientist who don't promote their biases do this.

Will you at least see the scientific method as a template set by scientists, and not set by ballerina dancers?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see how the scientific method is used against the Bible, unless it is misused, or abused, and I don't believe serious scientist who don't promote their biases do this.

What goes through your mind, when you see scientists deny the virgin birth on the grounds that Jesus was a male, and it takes a male father to supply the y-chromosome?

Or what goes through your mind when you see the Flood denied, because there should be "watermarks" all over the earth of this event?

Or what goes through your mind when you hear the Jews referred to as "ignorant, goat herding, desert nomads"?

Or what goes through your mind when you hear we are "mutant, copy errors" made in the image and likeness of God?

I could go on and on and on ...

 

[CoreyD]

But the big question is:

Did they do it in spite of science ... or with respect to it?

Yes. With respect to science.

Let's take the Grand Canyon as an example.

All an unregenerate scientist can do -- assuming he adheres to science only -- is see a beautiful geological phenomenon.

On the other hand, a born again scientist can see further, and see the Grand Canyon as a horrible tear in God's perfect creation due to sin.

It's the interpretation that makes the difference.
Today, in the scientific community, interpretations differ. Theories/hypotheses differ.
Scientist disagree, even to the point of fighting and name-calling.
You just have to do a quick google search, and it's all there... biases and all.
They are human.

However, how the evidence is interpreted, will lead to different conclusions.
It's not direct evidence we are looking at.

 

[CoreyD]

Will you at least see the scientific method as a template set by scientists, and not set by ballerina dancers?

Okay. Are we good now?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay. Are we good now?

Sounds good to me.

One more question, please.

Should scientists see Israel as "the promised land"?

Or should scientists view Israel as just a geopolitical entity that was given to them by the British?

 

[BCP1928]

Sounds good to me.

One more question, please.

Should scientists see Israel as "the promised land"?

Or should scientists view Israel as just a geopolitical entity that was given to them by the British?

Why should scientists have an opinion about such a thing, one way or the other.

I would say, what they think/believe the earth presents to them.
I can show you some examples, if you would like me to.


I know scientist who, because of the evidence, are not against the Bible. Some were atheists, before they accepted what the Bible says, but because of what they saw, both in the natural world, and their examination of the Bible, they acquired faith.

Faith in what? Faith in Christ? Or faith in the literal inerrancy of Scripture?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should scientists have an opinion about such a thing, one way or the other.

Then they can keep their mouths shut about it and admit they don't have enough information, can't they?

 

[dlamberth]

I would say, what they think/believe the earth presents to them.
I can show you some examples, if you would like me to.

OK, do it.

 

[dlamberth]

It's the interpretation that makes the difference.

I could be wrong, but I feel that I know for certain that your interpretation of the geology of the earth and the AV's will be different.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes I did answer your question, you either failed to comprehend it or chose to ignore to it because it is an inconvenient truth which clashes with your beliefs.
Either way you are the one avoiding the burden of proof with this futile attempt at diversion.

You did? Would you be able to say which question you answered?

sjastro said:
Scientists are not making assumptions but using evidence based on GPS, geodetic data, thermochronology, strath terrace dating, sediment analysis, isostatic compensation and geological markers.

That is what you said, and I asked you to "Please clarify. Are you saying no assumptions are made here?"
I asked because your statement is not true.
In all those methods, or models, assumptions are made.

You notice you did not answer the question?

Let me try one more time with an extra caveat, you don’t appear to grasp the concept of geological time scales.
Mountain building occurs on geological time scales lasting tens of millions of years, you are only interested in what has happened in the last 4500 years.

Based on the assumption that the rate is constant, slow and gradual, they do.
We have passed that stage, though. Or at least I thought we did.

It doesn’t take much insight to realize 4500 years is far too short for any significant changes in mountain height, and let’s not forget you accepted the tectonic uplift rates from the 2006 Andes link which if applied to a 4500 year interval is still insignificant.

I used it as an example.
Persons were limiting it. Are you doing that as well?

There is another variable I should have mentioned it’s called the conservation of mass.
If every single drop of water from oceans, lakes, rivers, ice sheets and groundwater was converted to water vapour and added to the existing vapour in the atmosphere and allowed to rain, the total depth for the global flood would be ~2700 meters.

Your figures are at least correct.
There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans.
A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from.

Genesis 7:11 'all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.'
Water came from beneath, and water goes in the earth as well.

This is an idealized case for the earth being perfectly smooth, if we included ocean basins for example, the depth would be less.
This leads to the absurd situation that Mt Everest would have a fraction of its current height at the time of the flood to be covered by water and the tectonic uplift rate would have to be many magnitudes times greater than the measured rate to achieve its current height.

If all factors are not taken into consideration, and included, I can see how this conclusion is reached.

If you disagree with this the burden of proof is on you to show it is wrong, since this is a science forum miracles violating the conservation of mass, or massive acceleration in the recent past without supporting evidence is not allowed.

There are Basic assumptions of science, and you deny this, so I think we need to clarify this first.
I checked GPS, and geodetic data, and these both use assumptions.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes because as explained the sea floor, sea level and mountain are all part of the lithosphere which is sinking into the asthenosphere due to the weight.

I'll look into this some more. Thanks.