Genesis Flood Local Or Global ?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I would imagine no. They wouldn't have had an umbilical cord. My mother had a terrible infection in her belly button and it left her without a belly button. The scientist would naturally conclude that something happened to the both of them to render them without a belly button. He certainly would see that they were mature adults and assume that regardless as to what happened to their belly buttons, they appeared to be adults. However, they didn't exist just eight days prior.

Observations can be deceiving is my point. All things being relative. If the Bible is true and God is all powerful, he could indeed have created the earth as literally described in the Bible. If he did, it would DEMAND an appearance of age. This would cause any "scientific" notion pr observation refusing to consider the Creator into it's equations seriously flawed.

Have you considered some of the other points - sediment layers, tree rings, your own mitochondrial and nuclear DNA? All of these items have "scars" of age. And I knbow you are considering this just from an academic standpoint...

Would our scientist find that Adam's mother had aquired an immunity to malaria and passed it along to Adam in his DNA? Or would he have to hang around until after the Fall and then find that Adam's ancestors had passed along genes that made him susceptible to certain cancers, sickle cell or Parkinson's?

What about the bacteria in his gut and their DNA and evolutionary history? These things are like "foot prints" in the rocks. They speak of an earlier time and earlier life.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Have you considered some of the other points - sediment layers, tree rings, your own mitochondrial and nuclear DNA? All of these items have "scars" of age. And I knbow you are considering this just from an academic standpoint...

Would our scientist find that Adam's mother had aquired an immunity to malaria and passed it along to Adam in his DNA? Or would he have to hang around until after the Fall and then find that Adam's ancestors had passed along genes that made him susceptible to certain cancers, sickle cell or Parkinson's?

What about the bacteria in his gut and their DNA and evolutionary history?

I don't doubt that the scientist would see many unexplainable things...my point is that the appearance of age would be unavoidable and undeniable.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I seem to remember quite a bit of science assuming that the earth was in the center of the universe. The church embraced the conclusions of "science" and frankly she fell into it's error. Of course the Bible doesn't speak to this subject, but the point of the matter is that science also makes assumptions based on "known data". One piece of undiscovered data could turn scientific on it's head.

I feel that it's wrong to try and say "The Church was ..." right or wrong at that time and that "Science said..." something right or wrong. How about, "We..."? We were right and we were wrong. It took time for us to figure even a few things out and we are still working on it.

Remember Giordano Bruno? He was a fierce proponent of heliocentricism and even declared that the stars were objects just like our sun only at vast distances. They burned him at the stake for that in 1600.

We burned him at the stake for that and we were burned at the stake for that.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't doubt that the scientist would see many unexplainable things...my point is that the appearance of age would be unavoidable and undeniable.

But this would then call into question the nature of this Loki who created such a world. What kind of "creator" would create a world deliberately designed to deceive its inhabitants?

[Aquila]

This is interesting....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkqhlyQrqmw&NR=1

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

But this would then call into question the nature of this Loki who created such a world. What kind of "creator" would create a world deliberately designed to deceive its inhabitants?

He's deceiving no one if He tells us what he did.

[Aquila]

This may also be of value in our discussion:

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This is interesting....

I loved his first book. I thought it was great; but I still haven't forgiven him for lying to me in that Ben Stein movie.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I loved his first book. I thought it was great; but I still haven't forgiven him for lying to me in that Ben Stein movie.

lol

What happened?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

He's deceiving no one if He tells us what he did.

But that isn't our world. In our world we are given a testament in the Bible and asked to believe it to gain eternal life. This testament contains for the most part a history of an otherwise small and obscure people who have come and gone and come again throughout the pages of history - no real treatise on natural science in the whole book.

Then along comes a group of people some 1800+ years after the Messiah, whose faith is shaken because the Age of Reason rattled some old bones and they begin to demand that we accept their very slim and poorly adduced opinions as being "The Real Word of God" even though they haven't gotten a bit of natural science correct since they stopped bleeding one another as a cure for a head cold.

And, in our world we have not only the appearance of age - but we have the history and the experience of age. It's even written in every cell of our bodies. We are old. We bear a very old record of a very long period of life - 3.5 billion years of it.