Bodies From The Flood

Nobody said crude oil was from decomposition.
It's been COMPRESSED not decomposed. When the flood happened, huge amounts of sediment buried large amounts of carbon and hydrogen, (which was what living things were made of) which would have no chance of decomposing because there is no air or microrganisms to decompose it. It's been pressed under huge pressure and cooked to become oil. This would have happened very fast not taken millions of years. There was huge upheaval with the flood.
Crude oil, is a fossil fuel. Like coal and natural gas, petroleum was formed from the remains of ancient marine organisms, such as plants, algae, and bacteria. Over millions of years of intense heat and pressure, these organic remains (fossils) transformed into carbon-rich substances we rely on as raw materials for fuel and a wide variety of products.

Source: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/petroleum/
 
Yes it was also determined after the Mt St. Helens volcano šŸŒ‹ (circa 1979), that deep caverns could also be formed very quickly as well. (think Grand Canyon)
Yea I never bought that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years. lol

It was obviously a huge amount of water that carved out those crevices/canyons/caverns and earthquakes/slips as well. Craters and volcanoes can be formed in just one day. I guess people don't have much imagination or are unaware of catastrophic events that shake the earth to believe that it happened like that.

Also people don't seem to believe there is water trapped UNDER the earth. There is that's how we get springs, geysers, mud pools, caves etc
 
Crude oil, is a fossil fuel. Like coal and natural gas, petroleum was formed from the remains of ancient marine organisms, such as plants, algae, and bacteria. Over millions of years of intense heat and pressure, these organic remains (fossils) transformed into carbon-rich substances we rely on as raw materials for fuel and a wide variety of products.

Source: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/petroleum/

That's what they want everyone to believe, and even National Geographic is in on it. I don't look at the pictures....

MM
 
Yea I never bought that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years. lol

It was obviously a huge amount of water that carved out those crevices/canyons/caverns and earthquakes/slips as well. Craters and volcanoes can be formed in just one day. I guess people don't have much imagination or are unaware of catastrophic events that shake the earth to believe that it happened like that.

Also people don't seem to believe there is water trapped UNDER the earth. There is that's how we get springs, geysers, mud pools, caves etc
Water under the earth is a KNOWN fact!
 
That's what they want everyone to believe, and even National Geographic is in on it. I don't look at the pictures....

MM
What about rocks and sediments and bones? What about mathematical equations. or geographical work and physics. Then there is radiometric dating and spectrographic analyses.

A 2,000-meter ice core from East Antarctica reveals 160,000 annual layers of accumulation, year-by-year, snow layer by snow layer. And those annual layers rest atop another 2,000 meters of ice, which sit on vastly older rocks. Similar ages of ice cores comprise Greenlandā€™s thick glacial deposits. The obvious conclusion is that at least a million years is needed to account for many surficial deposits of sediment and ice. Earth must be much older than that, but how old?

Do we just ignore all of these scientific abilities?
 
Last edited:
What about rocks and sediments and bones? What about mathematical equations. or geographical work and physics. Then there is radiometric dating and spectrographic analyses.

A 2,000-meter ice core from East Antarctica reveals 160,000 annual layers of accumulation, year-by-year, snow layer by snow layer. And those annual layers rest atop another 2,000 meters of ice, which sit on vastly older rocks. Similar ages of ice cores comprise Greenlandā€™s thick glacial deposits. The obvious conclusion is that at least a million years is needed to account for many surficial deposits of sediment and ice. Earth must be much older than that, but how old?

Do we just ignore all of these scientific abilities?

Remember those WWII planes that landed on the ice cap, and ended up being rediscovered recently...under more than 200 feet of ice. They said that much ice should have taken hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate on those planes, and yet....

I do understand what you're saying, but their assumptions have been proven wrong so many times, and in so many areas of discovery, that they really don't know which way is up.

What will be interesting is if and when they tap into the massive deposit of crude oil beneath the northern Rockies...which is larger than all of the Middle East and Gulf combined. Most of it is beneath the Rockies up in Canada, but some of it is under our mountains. Canada has no reason to complain about that pipeline being stopped by that guy in the White House. They have more oil available to them than any other country on the face of this planet, and yet they choose to play politics and market sabotage. Pretty sad, really.

Oh, and that amount of crude, mineral oil did not come from buried plant life. The chances of that much plant and animal life being buried in just the right manner, with just the right pressures and heat to become oil...that's almost like trying to prove that biological evolution can happen from mere randomness and time....

MM
 
Remember those WWII planes that landed on the ice cap, and ended up being rediscovered recently...under more than 200 feet of ice. They said that much ice should have taken hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate on those planes, and yet....

I do understand what you're saying, but their assumptions have been proven wrong so many times, and in so many areas of discovery, that they really don't know which way is up.

What will be interesting is if and when they tap into the massive deposit of crude oil beneath the northern Rockies...which is larger than all of the Middle East and Gulf combined. Most of it is beneath the Rockies up in Canada, but some of it is under our mountains. Canada has no reason to complain about that pipeline being stopped by that guy in the White House. They have more oil available to them than any other country on the face of this planet, and yet they choose to play politics and market sabotage. Pretty sad, really.

Oh, and that amount of crude, mineral oil did not come from buried plant life. The chances of that much plant and animal life being buried in just the right manner, with just the right pressures and heat to become oil...that's almost like trying to prove that biological evolution can happen from mere randomness and time....

MM
Yes.....The Lost Squadron 70 years ago.

I realize that alot of Christians do not want to know this stuff. We want to belive that God snapped His fingers and POOF, there it was.
He certainly could have done that.

We want to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that the Rocky Mountains, Smokey Mountains, Hamillas, and Alps were all formed in a couple of weeks. We then also are forced to accept that the Dinasaur's lived and walked among Adam and Eve even when there is No Scriptural evidence.

We force the Hebrew words of "Behemoth and Leviathan to mean Dinasaur when in fact they mean a large, grass eating river monster.

We tend to debate that Noah took them on the Ark even if there is NO Scripture evidence.

However, I am NOT debating, but I also understand that God rules nature and it is at His beck and call. Geologists have shown that At one time, North America was a mostly flat land, largely covered by a shallow sea. The deposits of that ocean can still be found today, but the continent had few mountains. It was filled with fish and creatures for millions of years.

Then came "Volcanoes and Uplift". Mountain chains are usually created in one of two ways: Uplift and volcanic activity.
Sometimes they are created by Continental drift. Greatly simplified, the idea is that the entire world we live in and the crust beneath the sea are all setting on shifting plates. Evidently, after this inland Sea, "Uplift" created the Rockies and the land rose above the sea floor and what was once there is now under those mountains.
 
Whatever happened to taking God's Word literally and at face value, even if it meant being scoffed at by the 'scientific community'?

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.
 
Whatever happened to taking God's Word literally and at face value, even if it meant being scoffed at by the 'scientific community'?

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.

I agree and NO ONE is more of a "literalist" than me!

It seems to me from my observations that most Christians are afraid to even suggest that the 6000 year age could be wrong, since that might be suggesting the Bible is wrong. Can you even consider the massive conspiracy of manufactured false evidence from many fields of scientific research for an older Earth and universe that would be 4.6 billion years old instead of 6000 years old.

May I say clearly that the Christian faith is not imperiled by an acceptance of an old age for the Earth or belief in a young age for the earth. The truth of Godā€™s Word may be accepted on the basis of a very reasonable faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
IMHO, all of us should be able to have a healthy respect for science as well as Scriptural truth because Recently discovered scientific evidence is in fact, supporting the clear messages of the Bible.
 
I agree and NO ONE is more of a "literalist" than me!

It seems to me from my observations that most Christians are afraid to even suggest that the 6000 year age could be wrong, since that might be suggesting the Bible is wrong. Can you even consider the massive conspiracy of manufactured false evidence from many fields of scientific research for an older Earth and universe that would be 4.6 billion years old instead of 6000 years old.

May I say clearly that the Christian faith is not imperiled by an acceptance of an old age for the Earth or belief in a young age for the earth. The truth of Godā€™s Word may be accepted on the basis of a very reasonable faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
IMHO, all of us should be able to have a healthy respect for science as well as Scriptural truth because Recently discovered scientific evidence is in fact, supporting the clear messages of the Bible.
Agreed!
 
NO ONE is more of a "literalist" than me!
This is a mighty bold claim Major ;)

May I say clearly that the Christian faith is not imperiled by an acceptance of an old age for the Earth or belief in a young age for the earth. The truth of Godā€™s Word may be accepted on the basis of a very reasonable faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
IMHO, all of us should be able to have a healthy respect for science as well as Scriptural truth because Recently discovered scientific evidence is in fact, supporting the clear messages of the Bible.
Well stated Major , I feel this way also, there is room in Godā€™s great universe for the Word and ā€œmanā€™sā€ science.

Although many feel uncomfortable with some current scientific theories, I donā€™t see the relationship of science and the Word as adversarial.

The Bible is not a science textbook, I donā€™t believe it was meant to be, however, it is proving to be accurate when it mentions matters of science. For hundreds of years science has been revising itself to be in better alignment with the Bible.
 
I agree and NO ONE is more of a "literalist" than me!

It seems to me from my observations that most Christians are afraid to even suggest that the 6000 year age could be wrong, since that might be suggesting the Bible is wrong. Can you even consider the massive conspiracy of manufactured false evidence from many fields of scientific research for an older Earth and universe that would be 4.6 billion years old instead of 6000 years old.

May I say clearly that the Christian faith is not imperiled by an acceptance of an old age for the Earth or belief in a young age for the earth. The truth of Godā€™s Word may be accepted on the basis of a very reasonable faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
IMHO, all of us should be able to have a healthy respect for science as well as Scriptural truth because Recently discovered scientific evidence is in fact, supporting the clear messages of the Bible.

Actually, long ages does pose a problem, because if we accept what they claim, in that there is evidence in the fossil record of disease, suffering and death, then Genesis is utterly wrong, and should therefore be ripped from our Bibles and burned.

Why?

Simply stated, Genesis says that sin entered the world by way of the sin of Adam. If it existed before Adam, as is evidenced in the fossil record that I don't believe is millions of years old, then our Bible are completely untrustworthy.

I for one prefer to believe the biblical narrative since it's the closes thing we have to eye-witness account that the evolutionists simply don't have in their favor.

MM
 
Actually, long ages does pose a problem, because if we accept what they claim, in that there is evidence in the fossil record of disease, suffering and death, then Genesis is utterly wrong, and should therefore be ripped from our Bibles and burned.

Why?

Simply stated, Genesis says that sin entered the world by way of the sin of Adam. If it existed before Adam, as is evidenced in the fossil record that I don't believe is millions of years old, then our Bible are completely untrustworthy.

I for one prefer to believe the biblical narrative since it's the closes thing we have to eye-witness account that the evolutionists simply don't have in their favor.

MM
I do not think that you can hold the idea of death due to sin from Adam as a good thesis. If we follow that idea, what about animals and plants before the fall? Do we apply that theology to worms that might have been stepped on or fish that was eaten by another.
It is untenable position brother.

Why did God create Animals with sharp teeth and large claws if they were not intended to be meat-eaters. This demonstrates animals were created to feed upon one another.

There is no physical connection between Adam's sin and the animal kingdom. Why should they have to suffer for it?

The built in defense mechanisms of animals shows they were created to fend off attack. This suggests struggle and death.

Something to consider...I think!
 
Last edited:
This is a mighty bold claim Major ;)


Well stated Major , I feel this way also, there is room in Godā€™s great universe for the Word and ā€œmanā€™sā€ science.

Although many feel uncomfortable with some current scientific theories, I donā€™t see the relationship of science and the Word as adversarial.

The Bible is not a science textbook, I donā€™t believe it was meant to be, however, it is proving to be accurate when it mentions matters of science. For hundreds of years science has been revising itself to be in better alignment with the Bible.
Agreed!

I will not argue the Old Earth vs, Young Earth as it is not essential to our salvation.

It is simply that God left that door open and as we grow in knowledge we can learn more and more and that is what God intended.

If we knew everything about everything.......our heads would explode!
 
May I say clearly that the Christian faith is not imperiled by an acceptance of an old age for the Earth or belief in a young age for the earth. The truth of Godā€™s Word may be accepted on the basis of a very reasonable faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
IMHO, all of us should be able to have a healthy respect for science as well as Scriptural truth because Recently discovered scientific evidence is in fact, supporting the clear messages of the Bible.
Godā€™s Word would be thrown into doubt. If Scripture is misleading in natural events, how are we to trust it in salvific events (like the resurrection)? How are we to believe sin and death through sin is passed down from Adam in the light dark of evolutionary theory? This goes to the marrow of the Gospelā€¦our sin and itā€™s origin.

Look around and notice the damage evolutionary theory has caused this cultureā€¦a lie giving people an excuse from being accountable before God.
 
This is a mighty bold claim Major ;)


Well stated Major , I feel this way also, there is room in Godā€™s great universe for the Word and ā€œmanā€™sā€ science.

Although many feel uncomfortable with some current scientific theories, I donā€™t see the relationship of science and the Word as adversarial.

The Bible is not a science textbook, I donā€™t believe it was meant to be, however, it is proving to be accurate when it mentions matters of science. For hundreds of years science has been revising itself to be in better alignment with the Bible.
Iā€™m all for science as it sticks to the realm of observation, itā€™s a handmaiden of faith. But science is one thing and the theory of evolution another.
 
This is a mighty bold claim Major ;)


Well stated Major , I feel this way also, there is room in Godā€™s great universe for the Word and ā€œmanā€™sā€ science.

Although many feel uncomfortable with some current scientific theories, I donā€™t see the relationship of science and the Word as adversarial.

The Bible is not a science textbook, I donā€™t believe it was meant to be, however, it is proving to be accurate when it mentions matters of science. For hundreds of years science has been revising itself to be in better alignment with the Bible.
Yes it is a bold statement. But I will double down on it right now!

However.......proper undersetting of context, location and culture must be considered for correct exegesis as it does for all forms of learning.

I am a literalist but I am not literal enough to accept that taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). Additionally, it says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26).

As John Wayne said..........."Windage and Elevation"!
 
Godā€™s Word would be thrown into doubt. If Scripture is misleading in natural events, how are we to trust it in salvific events (like the resurrection)? How are we to believe sin and death through sin is passed down from Adam in the light dark of evolutionary theory? This goes to the marrow of the Gospelā€¦our sin and itā€™s origin.

Look around and notice the damage evolutionary theory has caused this cultureā€¦a lie giving people an excuse from being accountable before God.
I do not accept that brother. A lack of knowledge is what destoys the people.

An Old Earth does not do any damage at all to the Word of God. Acceptance of an old Earth does not necessarily employ a special hermeneutic that twists the words of the Bible. It would be wrong force scripture to conform to science, but that is not necessarily what old-Earth theologians have done.

I hate to tell you this but, over the years, young-Earth proponents have published an incredible amount of bad science over the years, and held this forth to the church and world as an unanswerable apologetic argument in the name of......."We just have to have faith"!

Brother, this is not a new debate. If you do a little work you will find out that Charles Spurgeon and C.I. Scofield worked with ways to reconcile the Bible with an old Earth approach.
 
I hate to tell you this but, over the years, young-Earth proponents have published an incredible amount of bad science over the years, and held this forth to the church and world as an unanswerable apologetic argument in the name of......."We just have to have faith"!
That may be true, but evolution is not scienceā€¦itā€™s a theory. No one but God observed creation.
 
That may be true, but evolution is not scienceā€¦itā€™s a theory. No one but God observed creation.
I agree on these points.

Certainly ā€˜Scienceā€™ is not gospel, it is a collection of evolving theories, some better accepted than others.

The literal definition of the word science is, ā€œthe systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtainedā€.

Science can be seen as a means to give God glory by exercising our God-given intellect and exploring His marvelous creation.
 
Back
Top