|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Some water measurements for the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All of them in regards to the Flood. Now I think you are asking for something that's off topic in this thread. This thread is about the rain measurements I made to see if the Biblical methods of producing the water provided enough to cover the mountains. That much was accomplished early on as the rain alone turned out to be enough even without the fountains of the deep, so there was plenty of water to do the job. In any case, the thread isn't about proving the Flood as such though that seems to be what you are asking for. Are there facts you think I've left out in this discussion about the amount of water that you want me to provide? Or perhaps facts in support of particular statements I've made in the thread whether on topic or not? The huge numbers of fossils and the strata of the Geologic Column are otherwise the facts I point to in proof of the Flood. Also the generally disheveled appearance of the planet. I know that isn't going to make you happy but they are facts that do support the Flood. In short, what do you want? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have a problem with....number 1. 1) their flat horizontality which is proof of their having been laid down in water; It's not all perfectly flat and horizontal, is it? If we roam the earth, we don't find perfectly laid down horizontal rocks a few layers down. Sure, some of it is in some places. But not everywhere. I'll fix these things later. First of all of course I mean ORIGINAL horizontality because they WERE all laid down in water. The disturbances that have buckled and tilted them and so on came after the entire block was laid down. I'm too tired to continue though. ABE: I added a few changes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I really don't get why you think repeating the text is necessary every time I refer to these phenomena but here it is:
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. This is understood to refer to a vapor canopy by the creationists I'm most familiar with. There's nothing nonbiblical about such an interpretation, it's just that you prefer your interpretation so you call yours the biblical one. It makes perfect sense to think of a source of rain ion the atmosphere as a body of vapor. You can't just decide that your interpretation is correct against all those of a different understanding who don't regard the source of water as miraculous. You may prefer your interpretation but it's no more biblical than theirs so you can't use it the way you are doing to make it the standard from which others deviate. My argument that the Flood water could not have been removed by evaporation has to do with the AMOUNT of it. Why you make anything else out of that I don't know but you are awfully certain and vituperative about a mere interpretation that you merely happen to prefer when there is no reason whatever to be so autocratic about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes it was a calculation rather than a measurement. It was based on the Biblical claim of forty days and forty nights of rain, for which there is no estimate of rate so there's a range of possibilities, I've said nothing about an infinite supply.
The idea is that the rain was part of it, the fountains of the deep the other part of it, and all that interested me was finding out that at a rate of rainfall that is extremely heavy but not impossible by today's measurements the depth of the Flood could have been achieved without any other source involved. That rate would be substantially reduced by the input of the fountains of the deep. I made no assumptions about how much water was available at either source, just that it rained for forty days and forty nights so the rate is open to adjustment. I don't assume any change in the basic laws of physics and nothing anyone has said about that is more than wild conjecture since you have nothing you can measure to prove anything about it. But one thing is for sure, you cannot "discard" a fact like the forty days and nights of rain, because it comes from God's word, all you can fairly do is change the rate to accommodate what you think wouldn't strain the laws of physics. If any rate would do that according to your reasoning then your reasoning needs adjustment. You weren't there, there's nothing for you to measure, it's nothing but your own mental conjurings that are coming up with such dogmatic statements about the laws of physics. All anyone has at our remove is our imagination, but creationists have belief in the word of God and you don't and that's the big difference. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Fine, we have two competing sets of interpretations, I like mine you like yours, nobody can prove any of it so leave it as is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How could the 'windows of heaven' be opened without a miracle? As I keep saying, if you want to consider it a miracle I'm not going to argue with you, but I don't think that's the only possible explanation and the whole Flood scenario is generally treated by SOME creationists as a natural event so I take it as natural too, but it's not crucial to any of it. But if you want a naturalistic explanation, a change in the environment that changed the temperature of the air could have condensed the vapor into water heavy enough to fall. ABE: Also, the way the water sources are stopped suggests a natural source:
Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; It was "restrained" which suggests a natural stopping of the rain which further suggests that the "windows" that were opened to release it at the beginning is a metaphor for what happens naturally when a cloud turns from vapor into rain. There is no hint that the source of the rain went away, the rain was restrained so it seems the source was diminished but not eliminated. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually Hooah, even though it's off topic in this thread I'm grateful to you for asking me to make a list. It needs quite a bit of refining and fleshing out but it's a good way to try to get all the facts I normally argue from into one systematic statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Who said it had to be instantaneous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They are all facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That doesn't imply anything "instantaneous" to me, the starting and stopping could both have taken some time to build up and lose momentum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You should know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
HBD, just as we know the Pharisees in Jesus' time (and all the way up to the present for that matter) missed the boat on their own scriptures, we have no reason to think that any diagram of "Ancient Hebrew Conceptions of the Universe" carries any weight of understanding over how a Spirit-led Christian reads the scriptures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Once we know that we can move on to see if there is any evidence of that model, mechanism, process and method ever happening or even being possible. We don't need to know all those specifics, we just need to believe what the scriptures say. We don't need to know exactly what "fountains of the deep" or "windows of heaven" means, we just need to know that they are treated in scripture as the sources of the water that flooded the Earth, one source above, one beneath. I see no reason to regard either as miraculous, especially since both persisted after the Flood in some form or other, so I think of them as metaphorical phrases for natural processes, but we certainly don't need to be looking for a model to find out whether any of this is "possible" or not because this is the word of God we're talking about. Whatever it means, it actually happened. HOW it happened is very interesting to think about, that's the whole enterprise of creationism after all, but we don't need science to tell us whether or not it is true, if we are believers then we know it is true whether we know exactly how it happened or not. Edited by Faith, : fix quote code
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That model was built on a simple, straightforward reading of scripture. Are you now saying that a modern day, Spirit-filled Christian reads the Bible in a way other than a straightforward, simple way and understands the text differently than a simple, straightforward reading would present? Maybe with a modern understanding of cosmology and physical processes? A "simple" reading doesn't mean a stupid reading, or a blockheaded physicalistic literal type reading, and yes, the more real knowledge of how things operate the better for understanding what the scripture means. Of course.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024