Controversial Topic

[Dr. John Nay]

This is one of the most controversial topics within the Christian community; at least that has been my experience over the past fifteen or so years. I personally do not believe this to be a peripheral topic, but foundational to one's approach in the reading of God's Word. I invite you to share your views, whatever view you may have. Healthy discussion can be very rewarding. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man another." (Proverbs 27:17) In addition, I welcome discussion on various dating methods and information relative to the age of Earth from outside of God's Word.

[Skepti Que]

I can think of alot of topics that would compete for "most controversial".
The messiahship of Jesus
The divinity of Christ
(In Doc's traditional heritage) the use of musical instruments in worship
The authorship of the Torah
Well, on second thought maybe there aren't so many after all.

[Jukia]

It is clear form modern science, from radiometric dating etc. that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. End of story. It is not, as young earth creationists believe, only several thousand years old. There was no world wide flood. The earth was not created in a week. Evolution is the best theory that explains how we all got here.
Get over it. Learn some science

[Dr. John Nay]

Jukia,

What support (evidence) do you have that there was not a worldwide flood?

: )

[Jukia]

Try it the other way. What evidence do you have of a world wide flood? Why not give me some evidence of such a flood other than the story of Noah in the Bible.

And how old do you think the earth is? What evidence do you have for that?

[Jukia]

Jukia,

What support (evidence) do you have that there was not a worldwide flood?

: )

The real answer is that there is not any evidence for the existence of a worldwide flood. None. There is substantial evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that living things evolved, that many many living things have become extinct. That the continents have drifted around, that the earth has been the target of several very large scale extinctions. To believe otherwise is simply to look at life through a certain set of blinders.

[Jukia]

I personally do not believe this to be a peripheral topic, but foundational to one's approach in the reading of God's Word.

I agree with this although approach it from a different perspective. A literal reading of Genesis--6 day creation, special creation of living things, etc. Bishop Ussher's calculations based on the ages of people in the Bible, etc. simply does not come close to squaring what science tells us. Science tells us that the universe is about 15 billion years old, that the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, that all living things are related through an evolutionary scheme--descent with modification. It seems clear that the broad outline of evolutionary biology is correct. Whether one subscribes to a Dawinian method, Gould's punctuated equilibrium or some other method or, more likely combination of methods, to hold a belief in a literal Genesis account of creation is simply irrational.

In my opinion, the Genesis story is a broad outline of God's interaction with man. It sets the stage but is not meant to be a science text. It was an oral tradition among a nomad people who were trying to make sense of themselves and the world.

[Dr. John Nay]

Jukia,

To answer my initial post question (What support do you have that there was not a worldwide flood?) with a question is begging the question. Do you have a response other than a question?

: )

[Jukia]

Jukia,

To answer my initial post question (What support do you have that there was not a worldwide flood?) with a question is begging the question. Do you have a response other than a question?

: )

If there is no evidence for a world wide flood does it not follow that there was none? Learn some real science. There is much evidence for local flood events, there is no evidence for a flood over the entire earth. End of story. If you have some evidence bring it on. The Bible story does not count in this discussion. Science, bring in some science. Thanks a bunch

[Dr. John Nay]

Jukia,

First, I think that it's important to understand that "evidence" is directly relative to where one has placed their faith. (If you do not agree with this statement, please let me know.) There are scientists that believe there is "evidence" of global warming. There are other scientists that believe the "evidence" is against global warming. For some, if it is in National Geographic Magazine it must be true, i.e. the fact that it is in this magazine is "evidence" to them that it is true, etceteras. In-other-words, evidence for one is not necessarily evidence for another. This is vividly manifested in a criminal jury trial.

I consider that the "evidence" of the global fossil record, coal, and petroleum is ample to support the factuality of a global flood.

[Jukia]

Jukia,

First, I think that it's important to understand that "evidence" is directly relative to where one has placed their faith. (If you do not agree with this statement, please let me know.) There are scientists that believe there is "evidence" of global warming. There are other scientists that believe the "evidence" is against global warming. For some, if it is in National Geographic Magazine it must be true, i.e. the fact that it is in this magazine is "evidence" to them that it is true, etceteras. In-other-words, evidence for one is not necessarily evidence for another. This is vividly manifested in a criminal jury trial.

I consider that the "evidence" of the global fossil record, coal, and petroleum is ample to support the factuality of a global flood.

Sorry, once you start talking about where you put your faith in order to understand the evidence, you are loading the deck to make the claim that those of us who look at the science do so because it is our "religion". Try again, that is simply nonsense and a way to move the debate off the real issue which is why in the world do creationists, especially young earthers, ignore the science and listen to the nonsense spouted by AiG and the like. Have your discussion with someone who is ignorant of the science. Your citation of "the fossil record, coal and petroleum" as evidence of a global flood only serves to show that you have put your "faith" in fables.

[Jukia]

Some how I screwed up prior post and my response appears just a part of the quoted post. Sorry

But in any event, want to explain how the fossil record is evidence of a global flood? Thanks

[SGStrong]

Sorry to invade, but Jukia, it just seems like your evading the question. You keep asking Dr. Nay what his evidence for creation is but he originally and repeatedly asked you what your evidence is that there was not a worldwide flood. I don't feel that "no evidence for creation" is a valid explanation or evidence.

[Jukia]

There is no evidence for a world wide flood. Can I make it any simpler. There is no evidence for a world wide flood. Read it again. There is no evidence for a world wide flood. I would state it again but suspect you will not understand it.

What evidence do think there is for a world wide flood? Dr. Nay appears to think that the fossil record, coal and petroleum is evidence of a world wide flood. I assume he also believes that such a flood took place 4000+/- years ago. I await either his rationale or a package in the mail of whatever it is he smokes.

And if it seemed like I was asking for his evidence of creation, I was really not. I'll settle for some scientifically valid evidence of a world wide flood.

thanks

[SGStrong]

What is your evidence that there was not a worldwide flood. What evidence do you have against a worldwide flood. Prove to me that there was not a worldwide flood.