The Flood is biblical event!

[PetriFB]

Jari Iivanainen's article:

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theflood.html


Certain people who believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe that the Flood had ever taken place have often regarded the Flood as a mere legend.

However, it is good to ask whether the Flood really did take place. If we were to make practical observations of the ground and the fossils found therein, and traditional folklore, they would refer quite often to the Flood. These indicate that a large mass destruction had taken place in the immediate past. The following passages will examine these different sources of information, which refer to the Flood.

The Mass Graves of Animals

- It has been estimated that in the Karroo region of South-Africa there would be about 800 billions of skeletal remains of vertebrates (Robert Broom's article in the Science newspaper of January, in the year 1959). This large grave find indicates that it cannot be a question of any natural event. The animals must have been buried very quickly. Generally, this kind of burial is explained in the best way by mass destruction such as the Flood, which can also accumulate strata on animals instantaneously.

- One special matter is the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia, because it can include millions of tons of animals’ bones. Significantly, several of these animals have been large mammals, which would not get along in cold conditions and they themselves could not be buried in any way, or be put into the ground. The next description, which is from the book "Maailman Luonto”, discusses this matter. It indicates how these large animals were found deep in the underground together with different kinds of vegetation:

... Of particular interest here is the fact that the permafrost in Alaska and in Siberia can include noticeable amounts of bones and meat, and half-rotted vegetation and other remains of the organism world. In some places, these form a notable part of the whole soil. A considerable part of the remains is from large animals such as from hairy rhinoceroses, giant lions, beavers, buffaloes, musk, oxen, mammoths, and hairy elephants, which have become extinct. That is why it is clear that the climate of Alaska was much warmer before it became frozen.

- An indication of the large mass graves are also the remains of rhinoceroses, camels, wild-boars and innumerable other animals in Agate Spring of Nebraska. According to the experts on this area, over 9000 remains of these large sized animals have been buried here.

- From Odessa of Russia, remains of animals were excavated in 1845 and bones belonging to more than 100 bears and of horses, boars, mammoths, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, deer, wolves, hyenas, different insect eaters, rodents, otters, pine-martens and foxes were found. These were upside down with different plant remains and birds, and even with fishes (!). This presentation of fishes among these country animals seems to be a clear reference to the Flood.

- In Palermo, Italy, mounds with a large quantity of hippo’s bones were found. As there are also young hippos' bones among the finds, they did not die in natural circumstances. The presence of these young hippos refers clearly to the Flood.

- Cave finds in Yorkshire in England, in China, in the east coast of USA and in Alaska, where a large number of skeletal remains of herbivores and carnivores were discovered. In Yorkshire, England skeletal remains of elephants, rhinoceros, hippo, horse, wild reindeer, tiger, bear, wolf, horse, fox, rabbit, and many birds were found in a cave. Generally, these animals, which can eat each other, would not in any case stay together.

- One example of large grave finds is from France, where more than 10,000 skeletal remains of horses were found.

- Finds of large cemeteries of dinosaurs have also been made. For example, in Belgium many hundreds, even thousands of bones of small dinosaurs were found 300 metres deep in clay stratum. In Montana of USA, about 10,000 bones of duck lizard were found, and from Canadian Alberta graves in which many hundreds of bones of rhinoceros lizards were also found. In addition to this, smaller grave finds related to dinosaurs have been made in different places around the world. It is likely that these animals have been simultaneously devastated. (For example in the book "The age of dinosaur", by well-known evolution researcher Björn Kurten, it is mentioned that several fossils of dinosaurs have been found in the swimming position, their heads twisted backwards, as in a mortal struggle.)

[steen]

I ask you all to answer honestly to the next thought!

but you haven't even answered ours. Isn't that a bit rude and presumptuous?

How accident in other words evolution have the ability to next kind of things:.

What do you mean with the implication that Evolution is an "accident." This is not some derisive but ignorant putdown, is it? Do you have some purpose with this remark, or are you merely trying to display ignorance of the subject?

[PetriFB]

Certain people who believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe that the Flood had ever taken place have often regarded the Flood as a mere legend.

What does the mythical food have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? What connection is it you are trying to draw here?

Evolutionists believe theory of evolution and the Bible records about creating. So evolutionists don't have any right kind of connection about biblical flood.

[micatala]

What does the mythical food have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? What connection is it you are trying to draw here?

Evolutionists believe theory of evolution and the Bible records about creating. So evolutionists don't have any right kind of connection about biblical flood.

I think what steen is implying is that how creation occurred and whether there was a global flood are really independent events. Just because one occurred or did not occur, or occurred or did not in a certain way, has no effect on the other.

Yes, the Bible does contain narratives relating to both, so I am assuming that is the connection Petri is making. I think is is fair to say that many people would expect there to be more of a connection than this. How life came to be as it is and whether there was a global flood are really separate issues.

I will point out that it is not just evolutionists that question whether a global flood occurred. If you visit Hugh Ross'

site, you will see that despite his not accepting all aspects of the theory of evolution, he does not believe a global flood or a young earth is supported by either the Bible or the scientific evidence.

[McCulloch]

It seems as if Jari Iivanainen's credentials are more theological than scientific. So, I suspect that that probability that this ice age denier has himself found a fatal flaw in the scientific theory of the geological history of earth is about the same as for me to have found a logical flaw in the recent proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

Ironically, the ethical standards in theology are not as stringent as they are in science so Jari Iivanainen, did not cite his sources. So it is difficult to determine and evaluate the research he used to draw his conclusions.

Given that he apparently has no credentials, his thesis is probably not original and is poorly documented is it really worth the effort to find the refutations for each of his points? I think not. Let us for now, focus on one and see if it has any merit.

It has been estimated that in the Karroo region of South-Africa there would be about 800 billions of skeletal remains of vertebrates (Robert Broom's article in the Science newspaper of January, in the year 1959). This large grave find indicates that it cannot be a question of any natural event. The animals must have been buried very quickly. Generally, this kind of burial is explained in the best way by mass destruction such as the Flood, which can also accumulate strata on animals instantaneously.

Then we can have some idea if this guy's claims are worth looking into or is he just some nutball taking potshots at science and yelling, "Godddidit!".
To start:

Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded.

Problems with a Global Flood by Mark Isaak

[PetriFB]

It seems as if Jari Iivanainen's credentials are more theological than scientific. So, I suspect that that probability that this ice age denier has himself found a fatal flaw in the scientific theory of the geological history of earth is about the same as for me to have found a logical flaw in the recent proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

Ironically, the ethical standards in theology are not as stringent as they are in science so Jari Iivanainen, did not cite his sources. So it is difficult to determine and evaluate the research he used to draw his conclusions.

Given that he apparently has no credentials, his thesis is probably not original and is poorly documented is it really worth the effort to find the refutations for each of his points? I think not. Let us for now, focus on one and see if it has any merit.

It has been estimated that in the Karroo region of South-Africa there would be about 800 billions of skeletal remains of vertebrates (Robert Broom's article in the Science newspaper of January, in the year 1959). This large grave find indicates that it cannot be a question of any natural event. The animals must have been buried very quickly. Generally, this kind of burial is explained in the best way by mass destruction such as the Flood, which can also accumulate strata on animals instantaneously.

Then we can have some idea if this guy's claims are worth looking into or is he just some nutball taking potshots at science and yelling, "Godddidit!".
To start:

Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded.

Problems with a Global Flood by Mark Isaak

I believe also, that the ice age has never been exist, for the age of the globe after all is very young about 6000 year.

Then to impossibility of evolution :.

Think about if someone would say, that White House (House of US president) has developed as the result of the evolution? But we know that such thing not appear by the accident and not as the result of the evolution.

Or think about, if someone would claim, that encyclopedia has born thus, that big bang bore letters and then after many thousands years from that has developed encyclopedia, in which words and concepts and information was born to this encyclopedia!

Preceding two claims are as foolish as someone claims, that complicated life was born without intelligence and building in other words as the result of the evolution.

[McCulloch]

I believe also, that the ice age has never been exist, for the age of the globe after all is very young about 6000 year.

Then to impossibility of evolution : ...

The topic of this debate, which PetriFB has started, has to do with the claim that there has been a universal Flood and with Jari Iivanainen's article about the evidence for the flood. I have responded directly to Jari Iivanainen and to a particular point in his paper. I have shown that one of Iivanainen's points has been refuted by reputable scientists. PetriFB's response is to assert without evidence that the earth is about 6000 year old and that he does not understand the process of evolution.
Posts about evolution should be made in one of the numerous debate threads that we have about evolution. Assertions about the general age of the earth should be accompanied with evidence.

[QED]

PetriFB > please join one of the evolution threads suggested by McCulloch above or start your own if you want to debate the impossibility of evolution. It really is a separate matter to the global flood so let's stick to that subject here.

[PetriFB]

I believe also, that the ice age has never been exist, for the age of the globe after all is very young about 6000 year.

Then to impossibility of evolution : ...

The topic of this debate, which PetriFB has started, has to do with the claim that there has been a universal Flood and with Jari Iivanainen's article about the evidence for the flood. I have responded directly to Jari Iivanainen and to a particular point in his paper. I have shown that one of Iivanainen's points has been refuted by reputable scientists. PetriFB's response is to assert without evidence that the earth is about 6000 year old and that he does not understand the process of evolution.
Posts about evolution should be made in one of the numerous debate threads that we have about evolution. Assertions about the general age of the earth should be accompanied with evidence.

Jewish calendar is very near to the right time. Now we are living Jewish year 5766. You can count for the Bible very near the right time.

He who believes that the Bible is word of God can't believe to theory of ice age or evolution, because they are adults fairy tales.

But if somebody wanna believe assumptions and assessments he can believe, but I don't, because truth is a lot of better alternative to believe as assumptions.

[QED]

Jewish calendar is very near to the right time. Now we are living Jewish year 5766. You can count for the Bible very near the right time.

He who believes that the Bible is word of God can't believe to theory of ice age or evolution, because they are adults fairy tales.

But if somebody wanna believe assumptions and assessments he can believe, but I don't, because truth is a lot of better alternative to believe as assumptions.

Last time I checked, the biblical date for the Flood put it smack bang in the middle of the Egyptian 5th Dynasty. The dust from this embarrassing revelation settled around the Catholic Church over 100 years ago. It really is incredible to have people press on regardless. Do you doubt the historical evidence chiseled into the Egyptian tombs and monuments? They were meticulous in their written records which can be read back from the time of the the last great Pharaoh - Rameses III in 56BCE to the 1st dynasty in 3100 BCE.

[McCulloch]

I believe also, that the ice age has never been exist, for the age of the globe after all is very young about 6000 year.

... PetriFB's response is to assert without evidence that the earth is about 6000 year old ... Assertions about the general age of the earth should be accompanied with evidence.

Let us review PetriFB's evidence that the earth is 6000 or so years old:

Jewish calendar is very near to the right time. Now we are living Jewish year 5766.

Humans have created many calendars over the ages. What evidence do you have that the Jewish one is correctly dated from about the time of creation?

You can count for the Bible very near the right time.

If we could do that, then there would not be a site called DebatingChristianity. You are asserting that the Bible is right about the Flood and as proof you are using the Bible. Does circular reasoning mean anything to you?

He who believes that the Bible is word of God can't believe to theory of ice age or evolution, because they are adults fairy tales.

Agreed to a point. He who belives that the Bible is literally the word of God must believe in the universal flood. This is not the debate thread for evolution or the ice age unless you explicitly tie them into the topic of the universal flood. I and many others do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. To prove your point, you must either:

1. prove that the Bible is the word of God and is therefore a reliable source of scientific information OR
2. provide scientific evidence that the earth is about 6000 years old and that the flood occurred.

But if somebody wanna believe assumptions and assessments he can believe, but I don't, because truth is a lot of better alternative to believe as assumptions.

If somebody wants to believe in a series of books that they claim has been magically revealed by a supernatural being, he can. But I require evidence.