Kosh

You think we're kidding because the stupidity of those beliefs is obvious to you?

j-ogenes

I didn't realize most Christians have posted in this thread.

Mageth

This thread is also illustrating that many people have trouble detecting humorous intent.

In any case, I've thought a bit about this thread, and have come to realize that, while the OP might be making a valid observation, it's not exactly ground-shattering. If someone believes in God, it's not surprising at all that that person would, if pressed, admit that God was capable of supernaturally (or "magically", as I like to say) performing things such as the literal Biblical Creation, the Biblical flood, etc., even if they believe the Biblical accounts of those events themselves are mythical.

Faith

And here I am laboring under the delusion that the earth is round and approximately 4.5 billion years old, and the universe heliocentric...

Starboy

Yup, that is a delusion.

Starboy

atheist

Here is the reply I received:

From: <askageologist@comcast.net>
Sent: June 5, 2004 3:19:31 PM
Subject: RE: Geology and a Global Flood


Thanks for contacting the Affiliation of Christian Geologists.


Science cannot prove anything; it can only disprove incorrect or false hypotheses. Those who believe Noah’s flood was global attribute the deposition of some or all of the sediment that is now sedimentary rock to the flood. However, they do not agree as to which layers were from the flood. Certainly, not all of it could have been from the flood, because we find deep water, shallow water, freshwater, and land deposits throughout the geologic record. Some of the sedimentary rocks are clearly of marine origin, but many are not. (We can recognize this by the fossils and various other features in the rocks. Sand in a dune, for example, has characteristics not found in sand on a beach or in shallow water, and we would assume that God does not change the “natural laws� by which he operates in nature, so they applied then as now.)


There are other problems:

- There is no known natural way to supply and remove enough water to flood high mountains without creating enough heat to cook Noah. Some invoke a miracle.

- Fitting every kind of organism that would have trouble surviving a global flood on one ark is difficult. For example, a saltwater flood would kill freshwater animals and a freshwater flood would kill saltwater animals. Another miracle?

- Getting organisms from a wide variety of ecological settings (climate, etc.) and geographical locations to the Ark and from the Ark to the necessary ecological settings and geographical locations is an issue. Why do some organisms live only in Australia or South America? Still another miracle?

- Humans were living in North America, for example, at the time of the flood, and there is no evidence of a break in that habitation.


Some look at Grand Canyon as evidence for the flood. They think it records both flood deposits and erosion by the receding floodwaters. I commented above about the possible flood origin for sedimentary rock, such as those in Grand Canyon. Let’s look at the erosion of the Canyon.


We have a membership of hundreds, but not all are on the discussion list. Recently I surveyed the list on the topic of Grand Canyon being cut by the Flood for another inquirer, and this is what I reported to him. Of those responding, 92% favored the conventional geology. One who did not vote that way didn’t like Steve Austin’s Flood theory completely, either.


Here are some comments:


From a geologist Army Major in Iraq:

For what it's worth, I've done a rebuttal for Austin's Grand Canyon book on my website, at www.answersincreation.org/original/gcbr.htm.



From a geology professor:

Conventional; however, it may be worth noting that the basic idea of erosion from upstream water sources is part of the conventional model. The main problems with Austin's model are the non-existence of the flood as modeled and the dating. Catastrophic formation of meanders is problematic, too.



From a USGS geologist (with the usual disclaimer required by government employees):

Count me in as a "conventional" geologist. I would predict that 90% or more of ACG's membership would be "conventional". Austin's theoretical lake-flood-canyon carving event doesn't hold water (pun intended).



Although I am far from being an expert on the Grand Canyon, I have read many of the old USGS Professional Papers and some scientific articles about it. I have come across only two references to an idea of catastrophic lake drainage. One was some speculation in a very early USGS Professional Paper by one of the first researchers (I don't have any details here at home right now) and the other is the paper always cited by Austin and others when forced to defend their "many scientists believe ... lake ..." statements. I haven't read this second paper yet because I have yet to get ahold of a copy. From what I've heard, it appears to be some enigmatic statements in an old copy of "Science News" or some similar popular science magazine (again, details are in my office and not here at home.)



This is from a geologist doing research in Grand Canyon, not an ACG member:

“Well, my feeling is that there is a strong possibility that Grand Canyon was cut initially by release of water from a large lake to the east. The lake is Lake Bidahochi, but it drained perhaps 5 million years ago. There is a possibility that it drained through karstic structures in the Kaibab monocline. I've never really bought into the gradually headcut from Grand Wash Cliffs upstream, it doesn't make sense to me. The biggest problem, as you should well know, is that dating deposits are difficult but dating erosion is nearly impossible. Especially when you want to determine if there are rate changes.�



Noah’s Flood would have been much less than 5 million years ago.



As you can see, there is considerable geologic and other evidence against a global flood. The language that the Bible uses can be interpreted to support that, but I won’t go into that here. This is not to say that there was not a flood or a person named Noah. It does suggest that we may be interpreting Scripture to fit what we think, and not necessarily the way it was. An excellent book on the subject is The Biblical Flood by Davis Young. It’s out of print but available used.



I hope this helps.



Please let me know if I can help further, and I’d enjoy a report.

Yahzi

Where did you get this information?

That's not what the Bible says. In fact, in several places, it directly contradicts it.

Mageth

So is the earth being "round", BTW.

Faith

My third-grader's science textbook.

I know what the Bible says about it. And your point would be...?

Starboy

Well yes, it can be approximated with an oblate spheroid. I suppose if you took all the GPS, side scanning radar, and photographic data and generated one big GIS database of the entire planet you could claim to have a more accurate description of its shape.

Starboy