There is a good Creation science solution for that problem here - complete with graphs to show how it accounts for the reversals during the tectonic activity at the flood.



in Christ,

Bob

The cosmic ray C14 production from N14 in the upper atmosphere is actually a huge problem for Darwinian evolutionism because it limits the age of the atmosphere to less than 30,000 years based on the fact that we are still "accumulating" C14 through N14->C14 SPR in the upper atmosphere faster than the backlog of C14 today is decaying back to N14 through beta decay over it's 5600 year half-life.



in Christ,

Bob

Dr Russell Humphreys also believes that God first created a big ball of water where our planet is, and only later turned that water into other elements, and those elements kept the magnetic alignment that God had magically put into the water because water in itself does not have any magnetic alignment. (From the site linked above on the magnetic field changes.)

The geological column is not something that is nice and neat with the oldest rocks on the bottom and the youngest rocks on top. There is a lot of circular reasoning in dating the layers of the geological column. Layers of rock are dated using the fossils in them and fossils are dated by the layer of rock they are found in.

If we want to believe the flood was a local event we may as well toss our Bibles into the fireplace and look for the true God in some other religion. The flood story is consistently told the same way throughout the Bible. If it is not true, the Bible is not true and Christianity is a fraud.

I find this tendency (it appeared in another thread today) to say 'if the Bible isn't interpreted my way, it should be thrown out' to be disturbing...

It is not about interpreting it "my" way. How do we get away from the Biblical teaching that the flood was worldwide? God gave Noah 120 years advanced warning. If it was a local flood, Noah could have walked just about any place on Earth to get away from it in 120 years. There are text after text after text that teach the flood was worldwide.

In 2 Peter we are taught the flood teaches us about the final judgment. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" These verses speak of the world in context of both creation and the flood. The world was created out of water, was later destroyed of water. There very same world that was created in the beginning was later flooded.

I find it disturbing when people suggest that if the Bible actually means what it says then God is guilty of trickery. What they are actually saying is that if they cannot understand how God did what He claims to have done than God is guilty of trying to trick them. But God never told man to try and figure out how old the Earth is by radio dating or any other method. It is man who insists on putting God on trial by trying to figure out things that have not been revealed to us - that being the means and methods God used to accomplish His great works.

The Bible is not a science book. Too often evolutionists, theistic or secular, try to read the Bible as a science book and thus be able to disprove it. The Bible isn't written to explain scientifically how God created the Earth or the scientific details of the Flood. The Bible is a history book. It records historic events that are relevant to the salvation of mankind. Our concerns need not be if the Bible is scientifically correct since it isn't a science textbook. Our concerns need only be if it is historically correct. That is, did the things it claims happened actually happen.

The world before the Flood was likely unlike the world we now live in. Biblical records reflect men living to be almost 1,000 years old. Doesn't Ellen White say Adam was 15 feet tall? We find fossils of animals which are enormous by our standards today. We have so little knowledge of what the world was like then it is simply pseudo-science to try and guess why things are they way we find them in the fossil record. It can be a fun academic exercise but ultimately we won't know until Jesus takes us home and even then we will only know if He decides to reveal it to us.

I think the suggestion that God is a trickster is a desperate move to try to reconcile the Bible and nature. The contradictions are just that stark. When I say it, I only bring it up to reject it. I do not believe that God tries to trick us. That means that we have more work to do in reconciling our (fallible) understanding of the natural world around us with our (fallible) understanding of Scripture.

What I have trouble understanding is why you're completely willing to say "The Bible is not a science book", and then go to enormous lengths to claim that it is scientifically accurate. If you were instead to recognise that when the Bible talks of a worldwide flood it is speaking subjectively rather than objectively, which is completely consistent with your position, you wouldn't be placed in this difficult position.

You guys have basically brought it down to 'treat the Bible as a science book, or throw it away'. Given that choice, I reject that choice, treat the Bible as a spiritual book and continue to believe in it.

Because the Bible is not a science book, it doesn't have to pass any science test. However it is a history book.

When it says that God created the Earth in six literal days it is talking about history. If it were a science book it would tell us scientifically how God created the Earth and we could try and repeat the process ourselves - or at least try to grasp it.

Take a look at fiber optics. There are people in the world that will never be able to grasp how light can carry voice and data through glass fiber. Moreover how thousands of phone conversations can be carried through the same fiber optic line at the same time. That is because within humanity there are some that are smarter than others. Let's just say we have some humans of higher intelligence and other humans of lower intelligence. Yet regardless of whether or not a person understands how fiber optics work, they can pick up the phone and call someone and record such a conversation as a historic fact. They can tell the world the conversation happened but could never explain scientifically how it happened.

That is the difference between being historically accurate and scientifically accurate. The Bible records history. God created the world in six days. God flooded the world. God stopped time to give the army of Israel more time to fight. The Bible doesn't record scientific explanations for these events. In fact, since God is so much more intelligent than we are, we must confess to being a lower form of intelligence and perhaps not even able to grasp the science behind these events if it were revealed to us.

True distinction. But there is also a distinction between more knowledgable and less knowledgable. I guess God could have shown Moses a holy video of creation and the flood. I don't believe that's how inspiration works, but say it does. Even so, does the video have a time code along the bottom? How does Moses, thousands of years before science or even Greek natural philosophy, interpret what he sees? What language does he use to write it down? What metaphors does he have to use because there is no language for what he is observing?

Look, I've said it a million times: I absolutely, 100% believe that God could have created the earth in a single miraculous week 6000 years ago. I do. I believe God's power is unlimited. But to anyone with any sort of decent understanding of the evidence, the earth looks much much older. Given that, there is a conflict. Some solve it by ignoring the evidence. Some solve it by looking both at the evidence and at the way we understand the Bible. And the latter can be mistaken. Not the Bible, our understanding of it. How many Christians believe the Bible requires Sunday worship?

Look at the poll I started today. Despite all the dogmatism, even the young earth creationist group disagrees *dramatically* about the age of the universe, based on their reading of Scripture. If it's not possible to reach agreement on that massive and profound question, how can they be so dogmatic about the rest of their interpretation?

We make certain assumptions when we look at the evidence. The ancient world (the world before the Flood) is a great unknown to us. Were radioactive decay rates the same then as now? How much carbon was in the air? Was there a universal global temperature maintained by greenhouse gases? Were there oceans and seas? The comment in the Bible that there was no rain is one hint that it was a vastly different ecological system. So are our assumptions faulty?

The strictest of creationists will use the genealogies to date the Earth. Most Adventists disagree with that method. However few believe the Adam & Eve were created millions of years ago. The Bible is clear on somethings as historic facts. The Bible does not address the age of the universe directly. The creation story does mention the stars but even there the language used is not specific and the whole emphasis of the story is on the origins of Earth.

The message of the Bible is inspired, the specific words were chosen by the authors and overtime translators have made minor changes. How dogmatic should we be? Well, first we must admit that the Bible is our only direct communication we have from God. The purpose of the book is for God to reveal Himself for the salvation of man. If it is not historically correct what does that tell us about God? Or what does it tell us about the Bible? I am not talking about science. I am talking about history.

If God didn't create the world in six days than the Bible is historically wrong about that. If the Flood wasn't world-wide, another historical error. If time didn't stand still for the Israli army, another historical error. If Jonah wasn't swallowed by a big fish, if Moses didn't cross the Red Sea on dry ground, if David didn't kill Goliath with a small stone, if Daniel didn't survive the lion's den or his three friends the fiery furnace or if Jesus didn't walk on water, how can we possibly believe that Jesus rose Himself from the dead? Why would anyone believe in the Resurrection but question the other stories without scientific explanation? And if we don't believe in the Resurrection than we really should toss our Bibles in the fire because without the Resurrection there is no hope and our faith is in vain.