Is Genesis History?

[JamOn]

Stuff like that in my opinion is people wanting to prove the scientist wrong with their own medicine, yet there is no bible account land mass was reformed or shaped by the Bible flood.

It looks like a rehashing of science to fit a Biblical agenda

 

[Dino246]

That still is not evidence of a Bible flood that did that, there was fish in the ocean before land animals, was that trench once connected to the ocean, tides move in and out of it, I don’t know went on but just because there is fossils in the layers still doesn’t point to a Bible flood.

Logically, that's a valid point. What the fossils and layers do point to is significant rapid deposition, and the canyon through those layers points to significant, catastrophic release of enormous amounts of water; both are consistent with the biblical flood.

I think your thinking narrow minded when you say dishonest and deceptive, because no one can hoestly prove how it was formed and why fossils are in the walls.

I say "dishonest and deceptive" if God created the layers with the fossils in them.

 

[JamOn]

Hmm I didn’t make that middle post. How did that happened

JamOn said:
Logically, that's a valid point. What the fossils and layers do point to is significant rapid deposition, and the canyon through those layers points to significant, catastrophic release of enormous amounts of water; both are consistent with the biblical flood.

do it one at time so things don’t get mixed up like that

 

[JamOn]

Sorry I just don’t get why Land features have to be carved out by a Bible flood. Like I said mountains was around before the flood why can’t a Canyon doesn’t make sense to me

 

[Dino246]

Hmm I didn’t make that middle post. How did that happened

JamOn said:
Logically, that's a valid point. What the fossils and layers do point to is significant rapid deposition, and the canyon through those layers points to significant, catastrophic release of enormous amounts of water; both are consistent with the biblical flood.

do it one at time so things don’t get mixed up like that

My bad on the post; usually I verify that it posted correctly. I must have missed one bit. That middle part was mine.

 

[JamOn]

My bad on the post; usually I verify that it posted correctly. I must have missed one bit. That middle part was mine.

roger that it’s all good I was just pointing it out.

 

[CS1]

like I said Mr. Tackett is not thinking the Grand Canyon May not have been created by a genesis account. if he is wrong then what two wrongs don’t make a right.

Anybody can make well educated video assumption[/QUOT

This is a great deep trench, seems more plausible than any trench above the great deep. there’s no way of getting to that trench but from a deep water submarine and that’s like looking at the world through a key hole

View attachment 214514

and you were there huh?

 

[CS1]

like I said Mr. Tackett is not thinking the Grand Canyon May not have been created by a genesis account. if he is wrong then what two wrongs don’t make a right.

Anybody can make well educated video assumption

you did not listen to the video clearly and HE is not discrediting the genesis account do you just look to be right or are you a troll?

 

[CS1]

Stuff like that in my opinion is people wanting to prove the scientist wrong with their own medicine, yet there is no bible account land mass was reformed or shaped by the Bible flood.

It looks like a rehashing of science to fit a Biblical agenda

he was not trying to prove science wrong, and science not an absolute truth science can be wrong and is wrong because science is not truth. it is a systematic study just like Theology is a science. The word in it's self is not truth.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Like I said that trench would be more plausible as the deep broken up scripture quote.

Mountains that I know was already there during the great flood the bible speaks of the water rising above the mountains

There is no proof the mountains where that high pre flood

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Ok I didn’t see the next page link at the bottom, my bust but still, it doesn’t prove all that was created by the Bible flood.

Never said it did, you wanted evidence that it might have

the evidence is there,

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Stuff like that in my opinion is people wanting to prove the scientist wrong with their own medicine, yet there is no bible account land mass was reformed or shaped by the Bible flood.

It looks like a rehashing of science to fit a Biblical agenda

Seems your mind is made up

 

[JamOn]

you did not listen to the video clearly and HE is not discrediting the genesis account do you just look to be right or are you a troll?

hmm or am I, that I didn’t expect.

 

[biker]

I don’t think God has to leave evidence, the waters receded and life went on, is it impossible for no landmarks to be present.

I believe God leaves evidence all the time. For the unbeliever, they are confused by it (as we see with Science thinking everything is older). For the Believer, it is confirmation of God's existence.

But I will add this thought. We know water both erodes and can create/build up. But the one thing water definitely will do, is skew time. Water erosion can make a band new dirt mound seem like a 2 million year old sediment because long term water effect is damaging.

Example:
Go in your backyard and dig a pit the size enough for a small pond. Fill it full of water and leave it for 6 months. Drain it. You will think that pond has been there for centuries because water erodes/damages.
^
This is why I can accept what Science is claiming (knowing they are wrong) because water erosion has simply "confused" them.

 

[JamOn]

Never said it did, you wanted evidence that it might have

the evidence is there,

The evidence would be looking at all the possiblity of how the canyons might have been formed. the video and the link you sent me, mentions nothing about glacier receding creating raging water runoff. the little Colorado river produces 500,000 tons of sediment each day it like liquid sand paper, if a glacier was melting and receding not far from the area it’s going to produce a lot of run off carry a lot more sediment than the current run off of the river today. the video below say some 20,000 yrs that’s not set in stone, but a glacier can melt fast and produce a run off that scourges the land vastly, leaving behind canyons and lakes and other features of the landscape.

 

[JamOn]

I believe God leaves evidence all the time. For the unbeliever, they are confused by it (as we see with Science thinking everything is older). For the Believer, it is confirmation of God's existence.

But I will add this thought. We know water both erodes and can create/build up. But the one thing water definitely will do, is skew time. Water erosion can make a band new dirt mound seem like a 2 million year old sediment because long term water effect is damaging.

Example:
Go in your backyard and dig a pit the size enough for a small pond. Fill it full of water and leave it for 6 months. Drain it. You will think that pond has been there for centuries because water erodes/damages.
^
This is why I can accept what Science is claiming (knowing they are wrong) because water erosion has simply "confused" them.

well if I dug a hole and fill it with water it would not erode anything the water would need to flow somewhere else to pull the sediment to erode. standing water in hole doesn’t erode maybe a tad bit to the bottom but the walls become hard caked mud or clay not scars of erosion.

 

[JamOn]

I will agree finding layers of dirt doesn’t tell time, on a Bible stance no one knows how many layers God placed for the dry land to appear

 

[biker]

well if I dug a hole and fill it with water it would not erode anything the water would need to flow somewhere else to pull the sediment to erode. standing water in hole doesn’t erode maybe a tad bit to the bottom but the walls become hard caked mud or clay not scars of erosion.

I probably described it wrong. But standing water normally won't allow growth. If you have specific water plants but they would need to be on the surface. but as you said turn to muck, mud, hardened is not the recipe for life and growth. When you end up with muck, mud, and hardness you are not able to date it accurately and the appearance won't look like it's only been submerged 6 months, but more like 60 years.

 

[CS1]

Hmm I didn’t make that middle post. How did that happened

JamOn said:
Logically, that's a valid point. What the fossils and layers do point to is significant rapid deposition, and the canyon through those layers points to significant, catastrophic release of enormous amounts of water; both are consistent with the biblical flood.

do it one at time so things don’t get mixed up like that

i'm sure you are more accomplished than Mr. Del Tackett. early it was attack on what was said " his assumption" now that is not the case? lol.

 

[JamOn]

i'm sure you are more accomplished than Mr. Del Tackett. early it was attack on what was said " his assumption" now that is not the case? lol.

No I never said I was more accomplished because I question what the man is saying? that is you wanting to twist a theory of me knowing more or like you have said before wanting to be right, does your mind always go to creating theory’s of people like everyone who disagrees is a troll?

the man said the mountain was formed by the flood no that is not totally correct and also he never even mentioning the possibility of glacier melts forming lakes, like glaciers don’t exist and don’t carve out the land scape or cause water runoff the Grand Canyon doesn’t have to be dug out by the flood just because it’s a huge trench.

the scripture says the mountains grew after the flood, there are other ideas that could be plausible of the Biblical flood that the ring of fire opened up and still around today but from the plate technic movement the mountains where raised, some of the areas around the ring have cooled but that is still causing things to grow today. mountains are still moving upward that can be measured as the distance between continents the Atlantic Ocean is shrinking in size while the Pacific Ocean is exspanding.

And before you go and accuse me of believing in the ring of Fire was opened, I don’t totally believe that I’m using it as example because Mr. tackett theory isn’t the only one out there that explains things.