tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post7863969816934801195..comments2023-10-02T01:11:04.783-07:00Comments on Mahound's <br>Paradise: Was There a Biblical Flood?Oakes Spaldinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-47759471348705714132018-05-22T13:51:51.167-07:002018-05-22T13:51:51.167-07:00Thanks for your comment!
I received your note and...Thanks for your comment!<br /><br />I received your note and so kept your first comment and deleted the shorter version. I've been having unrelated problems with my phone, so I apologize if I haven't always been timely in posting or vetting reader comments. Oakes Spaldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-61186276995733946412018-05-22T11:34:32.194-07:002018-05-22T11:34:32.194-07:00JMJ
As a bearer of a BA in Geology, plus a BA in ...JMJ<br /><br />As a bearer of a BA in Geology, plus a BA in Physics and an MSc in Meteorology, all dating back to the 1980's, I've had plenty of time to look into and consider theories about the Great Flood that would comprehensively account for what Sacred Scripture says about it, including the inexplicable decrease in lifespans after the Flood.<br /><br />It's Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory, found in his online book, "In the Beginning, 8th Edition," available in its entirety online, including diagrams and photos, at creationscience.com .<br /><br />Though not a Catholic, he puts many modern(ist) Catholic scholars to shame by his thorough approach.<br /><br />He even explains -- and graphs -- the exponential drop in human lifespans over the generations from Noah to Abraham.<br /><br />Blessed Octave of Pentecost!<br /><br />Ademar of Ohio<br /><br />Ademar of Ohiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04266633689084997291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-36325812357203235422018-05-21T11:21:16.164-07:002018-05-21T11:21:16.164-07:00Yes. The interesting thing is that the old-earth t...Yes. The interesting thing is that the old-earth theory began as a mere assumption, and then the empirical evidence conveniently came along to corroborate it. And of course the earth doesn't "look old" or, for that matter, look new or any particular age to anyone outside of a small group of scientists who have already made a priori assumptions about things that most people don't even understand - that the speed of particle decay is historically uniform, for example.<br /><br />And all individual results are evaluated against the accepted paradigm. Does anyone doubt that if someone dated a particular dinosaur specimen to only 6,000 years ago, the result wouldn't be thrown out or modified, due to "contamination," etc.? Oakes Spaldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-22101290324785292302018-05-21T10:56:59.882-07:002018-05-21T10:56:59.882-07:00Isn't most of the proof for the old-age of fos...Isn't most of the proof for the old-age of fossils, the earth, and the universe (whether radioactive dating, the speed of light, the age of galaxies, etc...) based on mathematical formulas/proofs that are not observable by the "average man" through his senses? I'm not dissing the intellect, which can make accessible rational and logical truths that are outside sense experience, but it is interesting that these old earth/universe proofs, used to support evolution (as it gives it the time the theory needs), are exclusively in the realm of higher mathematics (within chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc...). I may be wrong, and would love to be directed to examples, but is it possible for a man to walk in his backyard and through sensible observations, deduce that so and so rock is more than 10,000 years old, or that so and so star is so far away that the light had to have taken more than 10,000 years to get here? It may very well be that I don't have the scientific training necessary to fully understand how these ages are arrived at, but then again, that's my point: most men don't, and most men never will. In other words, I don't have the specialized training, and likely never will, to "see" for myself that such and such item is really x years old. I can only trust and take the word of other men who claim to have worked through the formulas, who claim to understand the math and science, who claim to have "seen" for themselves. Perhaps unrelated, but a quick search of these various topics seem to show that a plurality of the scientific research, mathematical formulas, and theories that underpin the "old" universe/earth/fossil proofs have nearly all been discovered/formulated in the last century or so. In particular, there is an interesting date correlation between Pope Leo XIII's alleged vision that caused him to draft and institute the Leonine prayers, and the rise of Darwinism and the "old" universe proofs. Sancti Michaelis Mileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02351672776122458066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-8326794696604711672018-05-21T10:39:39.063-07:002018-05-21T10:39:39.063-07:00Sounds like your church is messed up, Oakes.Sounds like your church is messed up, Oakes.Mystic Scholarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07593826779432906953noreply@blogger.com