Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question about this so called World Wide Flood.
John
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 63 (24271)
11-25-2002 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by funkmasterfreaky
11-25-2002 12:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Why on earth would you give an account of something to people that they could never understand.
Why would you give them a ridiculous description? How is this better?
quote:
That doesn't make it less accurate.
It does when it is not only less complicated but also outright wrong. Think about it. "Mom, where do babies come from?" 1) When two people love each other sometimes a baby grows inside the mommie. 2) The stork brings it. Both are simple. One is just plain ridiculous.
quote:
Ironic i think
Yes, when you realize that the flood didn't happen.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-25-2002 12:59 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-25-2002 5:49 PM John has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 63 (24289)
11-25-2002 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John
11-25-2002 4:08 PM


It is in your opinion outright wrong. Unless you have attained all knowledge that is a strong statement, when you have only evidence to say that based on our limited knowledge of the past i have come to the conclusion that the biblical account of the flood is wrong. You are making a statement of faith. Which you have told me is not allowed.
There are a great many more things to learn about our earth, with the very small amount of data we have (in comparison to the amount out there yet uncollected) we must be very aarogant, creationist and evolutionist alike to think that we could draw any valid conclusions. Or am i out to lunch again?
quote:
Yes, when you realize that the flood didn't happen
You do not know the flood did not happen. You would conclude as such. Again here is a foolish statement like you would see me making, being very bull headed. We seem much alike in this department. please forgive me if you found that offensive, it was not meant in such a manner.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John, posted 11-25-2002 4:08 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Randy, posted 11-25-2002 8:37 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-26-2002 10:28 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 34 of 63 (24314)
11-25-2002 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by funkmasterfreaky
11-25-2002 5:49 PM


quote:
funkmasterfreaky:That doesn't make it less accurate. Less simply put, i thought it funny yesterday thinking about all these men mocking noah, a flood hahah you have to be kidding me you're so stupid and blah blah blah. Now today discussing the existance of the flood, men who don't love God say a flood hahaha that's the stupidest thing i ever heard you're an idiot how could you ever believe that. Ironic i think
Understanding that the flood is an origins myth that runs counter to so very much of our modern knowledge of the world has nothing to do with loving God. It seems to me that those who love God might realize that the existence of an ancient flood myth does not mean that God really destroyed most of the world in a fit of pique because his creation didn’t turn out quite the way he wanted it to. They might also realize that trying to insist that those who believe in God must also believe a myth that is so obviously false may be counter productive. You can probably find this sentiment expressed by members of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists and others.
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/
quote:
There are a great many more things to learn about our earth, with the very small amount of data we have (in comparison to the amount out there yet uncollected) we must be very aarogant, creationist and evolutionist alike to think that we could draw any valid conclusions. Or am i out to lunch again?
I think you’re out to lunch again. There is a vast amount of evidence against a recent worldwide flood and no real evidence for it. No one who whose thinking was not dominated by the demand to justify the particular interpretation of Genesis that YECs believe would ever look at the evidence from paleontology, archeology, biogeography and biodiversity, just for starters, and conclude that there is any support for the YEC flood myth. There are multiple falsifications of the flood myth as science, several of them are discussed on this board. There are many scientists who started out believing this myth who realized that it could not be supported by science in any way including the creationist geologists who first realized that the earth was far older than the Biblical genealogies allow and that the flood of Noah may be based on a local event, but was not worldwide.
Phillip posted this much earlier on this thread.
quote:
--I’ve seen tree branches spring to life after being cut off by the roots (several months). You may have to.
Creationists often claim that trees could regrow from shoots after the flood. In my experience this is false. I have planted trees from shoots. You have ten days to two weeks tops to get them in the ground or they die and you can't just throw them down. You make a small hole and place them in it. I also asked my father who has planted thousands trees of several different species this way over the years. He agrees that you don’t have a lot of time to get the shoots planted. New trees will spring from cut off stumps but not if they are buried under the thousands of feet of sedimentary layers that were supposedly deposited by the flood. I have pointed out before that it should be easy for creation scientists to prove that seeds and plants could survive the worldwide flood. Just put a lot seeds and tree cuttings other vegetation in salty water for a year. Then dump them over ground that had been under water for a year. You should really wash off the topsoild by a great flood but I won’t insist. See how much grows. Somehow I don’t think they really want to do this experiment.
Of course, if you really wanted to do it right you could do this over a large area and then let loose two of each common kind of predator and two of each common kind of prey species( seven or 14 in a few cases) in the same area with it enclosed to prevent encroachment and see what was alive after a year or two. I’ll even let you throw in a few rotting carcasses for the predators to live on for a while, like some YECs claim they did. You couldn’t really do this experiment of course since everything would eventually starve to death but I hope you get the point.
YECs often try to draw false conclusions about Mt. Saint Helens and the flood. However, it is instructive to go to the volcano site. One thing you will see is that all the trees in the area are approximately the same size. There are a lot of fur trees that were planted and some volunteers of various types like alder and maple. Even twenty years later they are not very big though they are a lot bigger than they were fifteen years ago. Now think about all those species that live in or on trees coming off the ark in the midst of hungry predators with no significant trees to live in or on for many years. Do you wonder how they survived or do you just assume God took care of them somehow? Maybe he made trees spring up overnight all around the world. OK, if you insist this can't be absolutley disproven. Just don’t call it science.
quote:
You do not know the flood did not happen. You would conclude as such. Again here is a foolish statement like you would see me making, being very bull headed. We seem much alike in this department. please forgive me if you found that offensive, it was not meant in such a manner.
Perhaps we don’t know that the flood didn’t happen but we do know that if it did happen God went to a lot of effort to make a post-flood world that looked as if it had been around for billions of years, with multiple ice ages and continental drift and went to great pains to conceal any evidence of this worldwide flood. I suppose God could have teletransported the marsupials to Australia and ordered the fossil record in some myterious way and made sure that animals that were buried deeper in the fossil record went extinct first and made sure that all the animals that weren't buried deep survived and somehow preserved thousand of insect species that couldn't survive on or off the ark and left all that evidence of continental drift and ice ages since God can presumably do anything but such a view gives up any pretense that there is any scientific basis to young earth creationism, which would of course seem necessary because there isn't.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-25-2002 5:49 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 63 (24524)
11-26-2002 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by funkmasterfreaky
11-25-2002 5:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
It is in your opinion outright wrong.
Nope. It is in every testable way out right wrong. No evidence that ought to be there and much evidence that ought not to be there, if the flood were true.
quote:
Unless you have attained all knowledge that is a strong statement
No it isn't. Is my house painted a horrible red? hmmm... why yes it is! Didn't need to have attained all knowledge for that one. Same principle.
quote:
when you have only evidence to say that based on our limited knowledge of the past i have come to the conclusion that the biblical account of the flood is wrong.
Join one of the flood threads young skywalker. You have much to learn.
quote:
Or am i out to lunch again?
Well, yes.
quote:
You do not know the flood did not happen.
I'm afraid that I do. The evidence is overwhelmingly against there having been a recent global flood. The evidence for it is absolutely zero.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-25-2002 5:49 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 11-26-2002 10:53 PM John has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 36 of 63 (24527)
11-26-2002 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
11-26-2002 10:28 PM


[QUOTE][B]I'm afraid that I do. The evidence is overwhelmingly against there having been a recent global flood. The evidence for it is absolutely zero.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I concur.
A global flood would have changed *everything*. The geologic column would have been turned into something completely unlike what we see today. Fossils would be sorted by density, not by their evolutionary order of arrival. There would be a layer of bones and teeth, and then a layer with all the wood, then a layer of chalk and diatoms. These three layers would cover the entire land surface of Earth. And they would be filled with graded bedding. Then when the water retreated it would have turned the topography of every continent on Earth into channeled scabland. Plus you have all kinds of problems, like where the water came from and where it went. You also have to explain how fossil reefs far inland managed to grow tens of meters thick during this flood (coral grows millimeters per year and dies when exposed to even slight amounts of suspended sediment, when the temperature drops, or when the light is cut out).
Biogeography would be messed up as well. Every species of desert life would be present in the Middle East, and you would have to explain things like why certain species are only found on certain islands, if they had to migrate through the deserts (and across the oceans) to arrive on that THAT island, and only THAT island.
You have the genetic bottleneck problem, in explaining how much genetic diversity there are in some species if their population was reduced to eight individuals in the last few thousand years. You have the parasite problem. The fragile insect problem.
And then you have problems with physics, like what Earth's atmosphere would have been like before the flood if all that limestone had to be deposited during the flood. You have to have all that water condense as rain without broiling Noah (latent heat of condensation, to the tune of 600 cal/gram). And you have to have Noah at all caring and feeding all those baby dinosaurs, and then rebuilding the planetary ecosystem from scratch.
There are problems with a young Earth as well.
During those 6000 years of Earth history you have dozens of caldera explosions and the Earth being struck by more than 120 asteroids and comets large enough to form craters -- yet historically no craters have been observed forming, though there "should" be a new (big) one every 50 years. There's a miracle, the cratering stops at the dawn of history!
It's worse for the Moon, which has thousands of craters. In the old Earth time scale Earth and Moon are hit about the same number of times (per square kilometer) but Earth's surface is active so most of ours get erased. But if the Earth and Moon are both 6000 years old what happened to all the Earth's other craters? And how did we get bombarded like the Moon and Adam and Eve didn't notice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-26-2002 10:28 PM John has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 37 of 63 (24554)
11-27-2002 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coragyps
11-25-2002 9:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
quote:
There is no suggestion that the twig came from a live tree,
is there?
If you take the translation to mean an olive branch, with leaves so that it is distinguishable from driftwood, I would think a live tree is called for. A year under seawater would make leaves look pretty funky.

That being the case, and knowing from experience how hard it
is to grow olive trees (especially when you over water them
and all the leaves drop off), I would have to agree that the
passage itself is more likely to be symbolic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 11-25-2002 9:36 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-27-2002 3:04 PM Peter has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 63 (24632)
11-27-2002 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Peter
11-27-2002 6:24 AM


Young skywalker is right, i may be missing a hand right now but i do intend to throw that ol' emperor right down the tube, lol, just you wait till this here last of the jedi comes to town fully trained. lol Don't worry darth i'll save you. There is still good in you I can feel it. Oh my i'm laughing so hard i can't see the screen to type.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Peter, posted 11-27-2002 6:24 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Peter, posted 12-11-2002 7:23 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 63 (24754)
11-28-2002 5:37 AM


Hmmm - anyone got some dried frog pills?

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 63 (25566)
12-05-2002 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coragyps
11-24-2002 8:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
If we really get TC back to this thread, let me note a couple of things that need to be addressed:
- All that water was seawater, or at least seawater with fresh water floating on top, undisturbed and unmixed by those big "flood surges" every few days.
- Soil irrigated for a few years with even mildly brackish water will not grow most crop plants - it accumulates too much salt.
- Coconuts, mangroves, and saltgrass will tolerate seawater, but are not mentioned in Genesis. Grapes won't tolerate seawater. How long after this flood was it that Noah got drunk?
- Think of our invertebrate friends in the sea: only a very few will survive, say, a 20% dilution of seawater with fresh. So while we're keeping the saltwater off our crops, let's keep the rainwater off our reefs.

Hey TC,
bump....
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2002 8:32 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by John, posted 12-11-2002 9:51 AM John has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 41 of 63 (26278)
12-11-2002 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by funkmasterfreaky
11-27-2002 3:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Young skywalker is right, i may be missing a hand right now but i do intend to throw that ol' emperor right down the tube, lol, just you wait till this here last of the jedi comes to town fully trained. lol Don't worry darth i'll save you. There is still good in you I can feel it. Oh my i'm laughing so hard i can't see the screen to type.

Eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-27-2002 3:04 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 63 (26293)
12-11-2002 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by John
12-05-2002 10:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Hey TC,
bump....

------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John, posted 12-05-2002 10:01 AM John has not replied

  
tamijudah
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 63 (33946)
03-08-2003 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
06-09-2002 1:20 AM


gosh
G-whiz, ll that analysis for nothing, it was an olive leaf, rather than a branch. Which was made clear as it also was newly sprouted. I would be careful of this type of misrepresentation. Many would accuse you of being deceitful or would stamp you as a liar.
Go read the bible and tell me what it says. unless your reading your own made up fool Bible. In all my 16 years i have read 4 different bibles and they all state clearly(GEN. 8:11 that the Dove(birdie) brought back a OLIVE BRANCH. you must be crazy to say others are making a mistake when you make one yerself. Read your stuff clearly next time before you post it or you will have 16 year-olds telling you the truth. tami
------------------
tami judah

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 06-09-2002 1:20 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Randy, posted 03-09-2003 8:41 AM tamijudah has not replied
 Message 45 by John, posted 03-09-2003 9:17 AM tamijudah has not replied
 Message 46 by Chavalon, posted 03-09-2003 9:20 AM tamijudah has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 44 of 63 (33961)
03-09-2003 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by tamijudah
03-08-2003 11:07 PM


Flood geologists don't describe the Biblical Flood
quote:
Go read the bible and tell me what it says. unless your reading your own made up fool Bible. In all my 16 years i have read 4 different bibles and they all state clearly(GEN. 8:11 that the Dove(birdie) brought back a OLIVE BRANCH. you must be crazy to say others are making a mistake when you make one yerself. Read your stuff clearly next time before you post it or you will have 16 year-olds telling you the truth. Tami
Yes, my King James Version does say an olive leaf plucked off. But where did that leaf come from? You need to remember that modern YEC "flood geologists" claim that most of the world’s sedimentary rock layers (though they will never say exactly which rocks) were deposited by the flood of Noah. The ability of the Dove to pick a leaf off of an olive branch is supposed to indicate that the waters had receded. According to modern flood geology any olive trees, branches or leaves existing before the flood should have either been A. buried under thousands of feet of sediment or B. laying around in mats of floating vegetation. If A there is no olive branch to get leaves from and if B getting a leaf would not indicate the flood was over.
Ironically in their attempts to reconcile the Biblical account of the flood myth with modern science YEC flood geologists abandon both science and the Biblical account of the flood. The flood of Noah is falsified many times over by facts from many brances of science and the current YEC version of the flood is even in direct conflict with the Biblical account it is trying to defend.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by tamijudah, posted 03-08-2003 11:07 PM tamijudah has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 63 (33968)
03-09-2003 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by tamijudah
03-08-2003 11:07 PM


Re: gosh
Tami,
The translation as 'olive leaf' rather than 'branch' does appear to be the most accurate. Quite a few Bibles and many more commentaries and preachers get it wrong.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by tamijudah, posted 03-08-2003 11:07 PM tamijudah has not replied

  
Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 63 (33969)
03-09-2003 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by tamijudah
03-08-2003 11:07 PM


Re: gosh
Did you know that olive trees are exceptionally sensitive to waterlogging? The consensus among my olive-farming neighbours here in Andalucia (olive capital of the world) is that even a big, well established tree won't survive more that a couple of weeks' inundation. I managed to kill a bonsai olive just by leaving it out in the rain for a couple of days in a pot that briefly became waterlogged.
The maximum salinity they will tolerate is 3 parts per thousand, an order of magnitude less than that of sea water.
So if you believe that all the land of the earth was covered for at least a couple of weeks with somewhat saline water, and that a dove then found a living olive leaf, you are entertaining an impossibility.
Edited to add - They also germinate extremely slowly and erratically, generally needing several years to sprout, if they do at all. So no, it wasn't a new seedling.
------------------
Then HE said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Luke 24 v 25
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 03-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by tamijudah, posted 03-08-2003 11:07 PM tamijudah has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024