[_ Old Earth _] Thirty-Year Secret Leads to Evidence of Worldwide Flood

[Orion]

Ummmm, . . . .I just listed a few in my last post! Metaphorical imagery! How can you not see that? :-?

 

[John]

Again, . . . with the scare tactics. You make God out to be very petty when you resort to "do what he wants or suffer the consequences".

Scare, naw i prefer Truth tactics.

Please list this evidence!!

I have many many times in this forum.

It is metaphorical because it is supposed to be

Says who?

. It is a highly stylized and completely incomplete story of how, IF true, that account would have gone in the first place. You have two people told not to "eat of a magical tree", even though they had no knowledge of what it meant to do either good OR evil, yet they were punished for something they were oblivious to, . . . unless they DID know "good and evil" all along, and there actually wasn't a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" at all, making the story false to begin with.

No, that just goes to show the truth that the flesh is drawn to sin.

You have an angel (supposedly Satan) who, for some odd reason, puts on a reptilian outfit, and WITH God's foreknowledge, temps Eve. This causes God to make this species of reptiles loose their appendeges as a punishment (as if they were all guilty of being used by an angelic being). . . . . even though snakes have a great advantage being limbless in catching prey. . . . . . . . . do I even need to go on?

Does it? or was this reptilian one of a kind?

Yeah, completely metaphorical of what events actually took place.

All can be explained its up to you to take your finger out of your ear.

Once again. . . . . the scare tactics.

Nope, truth tactics :wink:

Of course God won't fool anyone. The universe is far older than 6,000 - 12,000 years old! No problem there. It's only a problem for YEC who MUST limit the earth and universe based upon geneologies and metaphorical stories

I say again "
God never fooled anyone, you have fooled yourself the Bible makes this clear." "They are "willingly Ignorant"

 

[John]

Ummmm, . . . .I just listed a few in my last post! Metaphorical imagery! How can you not see that? :-?

We must have posted at the same time....

 

[Orion]

By repeating the same things over and over, . . . it doesn't make it any more truer than before.

You have no evidence of anything, and what evidence you believe you have, others have demonstrated how it is faulty. You have to rationalize things away when it doesn't make sense, such as, . . "Does it? or was this reptilian one of a kind?"

When you take the story AS metaphorical, then all the fantastic imagery is fine. It only breaks apart when you MUST have it literal.

 

[Deep Thought]

So we're back to the question our resident Creationists seem to refuse to answer - which parts of the Bible do you take literally and which parts do you interpret metaphorically? If you interpret the entire Bible literally, then you either haven't read the Bible or you need to close down your logical part of the brain to accept it.

 

[John]

So we're back to the question our resident Creationists seem to refuse to answer - which parts of the Bible do you take literally and which parts do you interpret metaphorically? If you interpret the entire Bible literally, then you either haven't read the Bible or you need to close down your logical part of the brain to accept it.

I think i answered before. Its not hard stuff like Jesus said he is a door, he did not mean that he was a literal wooden door. But when God said he would destroy the world with a flood i think he means a just that.

 

[Deep Thought]

That doesn't provide enough detail.

Do you consider the entire OT to be literal and just some of the NT to be literal then?

 

[John]

That doesn't provide enough detail.

Do you consider the entire OT to be literal and just some of the NT to be literal then?

Some.

 

[freeway]

VaultZero4Me says:
My point was that what you believe the Bible is saying may not be actually what it says.

well then tell me what you think the parts mean that I'm misunderstanding.. how do you interpret passages the conflict with you though.. 8-) 8-)

and are you a Christian?

 

[Deep Thought]

That doesn't provide enough detail.

Do you consider the entire OT to be literal and just some of the NT to be literal then?

Some.

Does that mean you consider the entire OT to be literal then?

 

[Barbarian]

In the grand canyon, some of them have grain and cross-bedding structure that occurs only by windblown sand. Deserts, in other words. How do you get a desert to form in the middle of a great worldwide flood?

 

[John]

In the grand canyon, some of them have grain and cross-bedding structure that occurs only by windblown sand. Deserts, in other words. How do you get a desert to form in the middle of a great worldwide flood?

why do you say that this only forms in a desert why not a beach?

 

[jwu]

why do you say that this only forms in a desert why not a beach?

Beaches typically only form a thin but long strip at the coastline, while deserts cover large areas. Hence they are easy to distinguish.

But even the case of a beach doesn't help your case, as you still need dryness in this scenario in order to get sand blown around by wind. Whether there is a ocean nearby or not doesn't change that.

 

[John]

In the grand canyon, some of them have grain and cross-bedding structure that occurs only by windblown sand

Can you show an example, maybe a pic perhaps?

 

[Barbarian]

Established in 1909 as Mukuntuweap National Monument, then as Zion National Park in 1919, a total of 229 square miles (636 Km2) of southwestern Utah are protected. Zion Canyon was carved by the upper stretches of the Virgin River and ranges from 3,900 feet (1,189 meters) elevation along the lower stretch of the river, to 7,795 feet (2,377 meters) at the peak of The West Temple. The Mesozoic-age White Cliffs of the Grand Staircase are dominant in the canyon. The White Cliffs include the fossilized sand dunes of the Navajo Sandstone from the Jurassic Period (140 to 180 million years ago). The underlying Vermilion Cliffs, hidden by slope debris near the base of the canyon walls though much of the canyon, include the terrestrial sediments of the Chinle Group, and sandstone of the Moenave Formation from the Triassic Period (195 to 225 million years ago), as well as the terrace-forming terrestrial sediments of the Jurassic-age Kayenta Formation.

http://rosettastone.wordpress.com/2006/04/

Read the link, it explains how we know.

Sand waves deposited in water possess very low angle cross-beds, rarely steeper than 10 degrees. Cross-bedding in eolian dunes occurs at various angles. The general range in slope of the cross-beds is from 11 to 34 degrees. The average appears to be close to 25-28 degrees. The average slope of cross-bedding does not have to be equal to 30 to 34 degrees, which is the maximum slope of dry sand, to be from a sand dune. The maximum slope of cross-bedding within the Coconino Sandstone does get as steep as 30 to 34 degrees (McKee 1979; Reineck and Singh 1980). The 30-34 degree slope is produced from sand avalanching down the lee slip face of the dune. The beds and laminae produced by wind ripple migration can form cross-bedding and lamination that has slopes up to 20 degrees within a sand dune. Given that this cross-bedding is present everywhere in the Coconino Sandstone, it greatly decreases the average slope of the cross-bedding within the Coconino Sandstone. In addition, grain-fall processes produce low, inclined lamination and beds with slopes that average between 20 to 30 degrees and range from 0 to 40 degrees. The presence of grain-fall bedding and lamination within the Coconino, not only refutes the hypotheses concerning the underwater or marine origin of the Coconino Sandstone but also again greatly decreases the average slope of the cross-bedding found in the Coconino Sandstone. Thus, it is completely reasonable that the average slope of the cross-bedding in the Coconino Sandstone is less than the average slope of dry sand -- that is 30 to 34 degrees -- because the cascading of sand down the lee side of the sand dune is not the only process producing cross-beds and laminations in dune sands

Hunter, R. E., 1977. Basic types of stratification in small eolian dunes. Sedimentology 24: 361-387.

 

[John]

I still fail to see how these ancient sand dunes blow the flood of the bible out of the water...

 

[Barbarian]

Well, they are located in the middle of the YE "flood deposits." Which means that several deserts had time to form, dry out and erode mountains to sand, and then blow them into several layers of dunes, while the entire Earth was submerged in water.

Seems kinda unlikely, um?

 

[John]

Or there was a desert already there and the flood covered it :wink:

 

[Barbarian]

A good example of the difficulty is that the conconino sandstone lies far above the tapeats sandstone which contains fossils of trilobites and other animals said by YE creationists to have been drowned in the Flood.

There is no way this can be, as even many creationists admit:

http://www.answersincreation.org/stratigraphy2.htm

 

[John]

Easy.


============ < ---- Post Flood Rock Layers Due to over flowing lake or similar
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ <----- Desert Formed after Flood
============ <----- Sediment deposited by great flood