Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2017 8:49 AM
367 online now:
Aussie, dronestar, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Vlad (7 members, 360 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,778 Year: 19,384/21,208 Month: 2,143/3,111 Week: 364/574 Day: 19/59 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Critique of AIG on the Grand Canyon
Faith
Member
Posts: 25609
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 16 of 46 (787273)
07-08-2016 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by LamarkNewAge
07-08-2016 2:50 PM


Re: O.k.
I still havn't seen a creationist make any reasonable argument for lowering the chronology of the ancient world. The historical period starts at about 3000 BCE.

The "historical period" as determined by extrabiblical science I gather? I don't worry about finding a "reasonable argument" for "lowering the chronology" with respect to the dating methods of science. Rather, science should be required to justify its deviations from the Bible instead. Either fallible manmade science is your authority or God's word.

You seem to be trying to reconcile Biblical dates with extrabiblical methods of dating. That's a lost cause. You have to choose. I choose the Biblical dates.

I don't have any reason to read Ginenthal. I'm not sure what your reason is for reading it. Sophistication is certainly no justification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 2:50 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 3:44 PM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 17 of 46 (787274)
07-08-2016 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
07-08-2016 3:20 PM


Re: O.k.
quote:

The "historical period" as determined by extrabiblical science I gather? I don't worry about finding a "reasonable argument" for "lowering the chronology" with respect to the dating methods of science. Rather, science should be required to justify its deviations from the Bible instead. Either fallible manmade science is your authority or God's word.

How long was the Babel incident separated from the flood?

When did the flood happen?

How long after the flood did the historical period of written records begin?

How long after Babel till historical records were written?

When did the flood happen?

Last but not least, when did the flood happen? Your dates Before Christ vary by an unacceptable 10% range. You need to have some dates that don't float if all of the hard-worked out chronologies of historians and scientists must be shoehorned into your dictates.

quote:

You seem to be trying to reconcile Biblical dates with extrabiblical methods of dating. That's a lost cause. You have to choose. I choose the Biblical dates.

Are there 365.25 days in a year?

Are the years consecutive?

Is the methodology that different?

quote:

I don't have any reason to read Ginenthal. I'm not sure what your reason is for reading it. Sophistication is certainly no justification.

It seems that you keep making claims without any effort to back them up.

I'm at a loss to hear that scientific work and historical investigation must stop, as you seem to be saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 3:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 4:21 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25609
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 18 of 46 (787275)
07-08-2016 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
07-07-2016 10:31 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
This is true, but the sad fact is that the theories they came up with to demonstrate the Flood were pathetically unbiblical.

That's the way it goes when you follow the scientific method and the evidence.

You missed my point. My point was that if they'd had a biblical frame of reference they might not have run afoul of science. Since they didn't have a biblical frame of reference a false science was able to take hold and NOW it's true that one must choose between science or God's word on the historical issues.

Faith writes:

It was therefore a straw man that was eventually overthrown by their continuing work. That fossils were rocks designed by God to look like living things was one such ridiculous idea that simply contradicts the character of God as presented in the Bible. All ideas of creation continuing to occur after the Creation Week of Genesis 1 are obvious violations of scripture, which clearly says God rested from His work on the seventh day. But that's biology, so I'll try to stick to the Flood.

Ummmm, you can either do religion or science. In this particular case you can't do both.

Again you are misreading me. They were not doing either science or following the Bible. Their views of the fossils were both unbiblical and unscientific.

Again, the "evidence" led them away from their ridiculous straw man versions of the Flood, not from the actual Flood. If they'd seen the fossils for what they are, and the strata as ALL formed by a worldwide depth of water, they could have had a very strong argument for the Flood. Instead they had a ridiculous argument so the "evidence" could lead them by the nose to even more ridiculous conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2016 10:31 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 4:46 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25609
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 19 of 46 (787277)
07-08-2016 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
07-08-2016 3:44 PM


Re: O.k.
How long was the Babel incident separated from the flood?

Haven't calculated it. Probably a few hundred years after the Flood.

When did the flood happen?

Didn't we just discuss this?

How long after the flood did the historical period of written records begin?

Not a biblical concept. Moses wrote history so it began before him, sometime between Abraham and Moses then.

How long after Babel till historical records were written?

When did the flood happen?

Last but not least, when did the flood happen? Your dates Before Christ vary by an unacceptable 10% range. You need to have some dates that don't float if all of the hard-worked out chronologies of historians and scientists must be shoehorned into your dictates.

I don't dictate anything. But God does. And not that it matters but 200 years is not 10% of 4000.

Are there 365.25 days in a year?

Are the years consecutive?

Is the methodology that different?

Revelation is indeed a very different methodology from scientific calculations.

I'm at a loss to hear that scientific work and historical investigation must stop, as you seem to be saying.

Not all work, just the dating methods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 3:44 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 5:24 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 20 of 46 (787278)
07-08-2016 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
07-08-2016 3:01 PM


Finding Siccar Point
Can't find post where I successfully challenged one of your accusations along these lines.

Of course not.

Turns out Lyell's drawing doesn't prove what I thought it proved so I withdraw that statement.

OK.

I have to find the book about Hutton to check my memory about how he arrived at Siccar Point for his argument.

Hutton's Theory of the Earth is available on line.

Though the boundary between the two things here in question be easily perceivable from the nature of the country at the first inspection, by the rising of the hills, yet this does not lead one precisely to the junction; and in the extensive common boundary of those two things, the junction itself is only to be perceived in few places, where the rock is washed bare by the rivers or the sea, and where this junction is exposed naked to our view. The sea is here wearing away the coast; and the bank, about 200 feet high, is gradually falling down, making in some places a steep declivity, in others a perpendicular cliff. St Abb's Head and Fast Castle are head lands projecting into the sea, and are the bulwarks of this shore, which is embayed to the westward, where the sea preys upon the horizontal strata. The solid strata are every where exposed either in the cliff or on the shore; we were therefore certain of meeting with the junction in going from Dunglass to Fast Castle, which is upon the schistus. But this journey can only be made by sea ...

The line of this junction running, on the one hand, towards Fast Castle eastward, and, on the other, towards the head of Dunglass burn westward, our business was to pursue this object in those two different directions. But it was chiefly in the sea coast that was placed our expectations, having recollection of the great banks of gravel under which the strata are buried about Oldhamstocks, near which, from all appearances, the junction was to be expected.

Having taken boat at Dunglass burn, we set out to explore the coast; and, we observed the horizontal sand-stone turn up near the Pease burn, lifting towards the schistus. We found the junction of that schistus with the red sand-stone and marly strata on the shore and sea bank, at St. Helens, corresponding in general with what we had observed in the burns to the westward. But, at Siccar Point, we found a beautiful picture of this junction washed bare by the sea.

And here is a second account by James Playfair, another of the three people who went to Siccar Point that day:

We sailed in a boat from Dunglass, on a day when the fineness of the weather permitted us to keep close to the foot of the rocks which line the shore in that quarter, directing our course southwards, in search of the termination of the secondary strata. We made for a high rocky point or head-land, the SICCAR, near which, from our observations on shore, we knew that the object we were in search of was likely to be discovered ...

Here, therefore, the immediate contact of the two rocks is not only visible, but is curiously dissected and laid open by the action of the waves. The rugged tops of the schistus are seen penetrating into the horizontal beds of sandstone, and the lowest of these last form a breccia containing fragments of schistus, some round and others angular, united by an arenaceous cement.

DR HUTTON was highly pleased with appearances that set in so clear a light the different formations of the parts which compose the exterior crust of the earth, and where all the circumstances were combined that could render the observation satisfactory and precise.

You got that? He was looking for places where the junction was visible; he knew approximately where they would be found; he found one at Siccar point, because he was looking for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 3:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 21 of 46 (787279)
07-08-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
07-08-2016 3:52 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
Again, the "evidence" led them away from their ridiculous straw man versions of the Flood, not from the actual Flood. If they'd seen the fossils for what they are, and the strata as ALL formed by a worldwide depth of water ...

They did see the strata that way. You have been informed of this. Repeatedly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 3:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 9:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 22 of 46 (787281)
07-08-2016 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
07-08-2016 4:21 PM


Re: O.k.
I asked Faith how long the Tower of Babel incident was after the flood.

The response was:

quote:

Haven't calculated it. Probably a few hundred years after the Flood.

Good grief.

I then said

"How long after Babel till historical records were written?
When did the flood happen?

Last but not least, when did the flood happen? Your dates Before Christ vary by an unacceptable 10% range. You need to have some dates that don't float if all of the hard-worked out chronologies of historians and scientists must be shoehorned into your dictates."

The response was:

quote:

I don't dictate anything. But God does. And not that it matters but 200 years is not 10% of 4000.

But in post 13, Faith writes:

quote:

You include a lot of undated extrabiblical information, as well as some incoherent references to the NIV, but none of that changes the numbers given above. 2200 to 2400 BC is pretty standard dating for the Flood among us "fundamentalists" who consider the Bible to be the final authority. There is really no great discrepancy as you keep trying to pretend, there's Bible-based dating and there's extrabiblical dating.

You limit written history to some unspecified time after a flood that dates no earlier than 2400 BCE? You can't even pin it down to a period more narrow than a 200 year margin. 200 years is roughly 10% of 2200 btw.

I asked
"When did the flood happen?"

Faith responded

quote:

Didn't we just discuss this?

At the kindergarten level, yes.

I then asked
"How long after the flood did the historical period of written records begin?"

Faith responded in this way.

quote:

Not a biblical concept. Moses wrote history so it began before him, sometime between Abraham and Moses then.

You can't even place Moses' time into any dates - Biblical or secular.

This is the depth of knowledge of those who trash those evil secular scientists and historians.

Here is Faith ripping into ICR in post #17.

quote:

The "historical period" as determined by extrabiblical science I gather? I don't worry about finding a "reasonable argument" for "lowering the chronology" with respect to the dating methods of science. Rather, science should be required to justify its deviations from the Bible instead. Either fallible manmade science is your authority or God's word.

Gerald Aardsma, or ICR, holds a higher chronology for ancient Egypt than the historians. They say the first dynasty started 3100-3000 BCE while he places it at about 3400-3500 BCE because of carbon dating and tree ring calibrations.

He is an open "Christian".

I bet many "evil secular historians" are also Christian.

Why not just admit that the historians and scientists are honest people doing their best to do work that benefits us all?

If you can't even learn the basic about Biblical chronology, then why would you care to study any sort of evidence (you even refused to read from a relatively friendly source I hooked you up with - catastrophist Charles Ginenthal, who also subscribes to extreme chronological revisions which most "Velikovskians" reject)?

If you can't match the hard studied evidence and data with your Biblical chronological understanding, then blame yourself.

Don't trash the academics and field researchers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 4:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 9:44 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25609
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 23 of 46 (787284)
07-08-2016 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2016 4:46 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
They did see the strata that way.

Then they had no reason to give it up.

You have been informed of this. Repeatedly.

This constant refrain has turned out not to be true too many times so I pay no attention to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 4:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 9:59 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25609
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 24 of 46 (787285)
07-08-2016 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by LamarkNewAge
07-08-2016 5:24 PM


Re: O.k.
I don't doubt that the scientists are honest people, but trusting in fallible science over the Bible is a lost cause.

And now you act as if there's something wrong with my not sharing your opinion of dates? And you don't even bother to give your opinion though you agonize excessively about it.

Since the Flood occurred about 2200 BC or thereabouts, the dating of Egypt a thousand years earlier is wrong. Period.

I can look up the biblical dates but your attitude doesn't inspire me to do so. Off the top of my head Abraham lived around 1900 BC and Moses some 4 to 500 years later. As long as you give no reason to care in the context of this discussion I'll leave it at that.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 5:24 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 12:15 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 25 of 46 (787287)
07-08-2016 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
07-08-2016 9:37 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
Then they had no reason to give it up.

And yet they did. Maybe ... maybe as a result of actually studying geology, they learned something that you don't know.

This constant refrain has turned out not to be true too many times so I pay no attention to it.

If it has turned out to be untrue "many times", why are you not able, when challenged, to produce a single instance of this?

Could it be because you're making shit up? Don't make shit up, Faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 9:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 10:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25609
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 26 of 46 (787288)
07-08-2016 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2016 9:59 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
In other words they fell for the nonsensical explanations of slabs of rocks as representing long periods of time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 9:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2016 12:04 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 27 of 46 (787289)
07-09-2016 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
07-08-2016 10:03 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
In other words they fell for the nonsensical explanations of slabs of rocks as representing long periods of time.

Those are indeed other words, but then so is "Hello Mr. Giraffehead, will you fondly smoke my incontinent butter?" Perhaps precis is not one of your gifts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 10:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3524
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 28 of 46 (787290)
07-09-2016 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JonF
07-01-2016 8:56 AM


Panda's Thumb blurb
I guessing you picked up on this book via PT.

Anyway, they have a more lengthy article about the book:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/geology-for-eva.html

quote:
The book, which I have not seen, appears to be lavishly illustrated, with 255 photographs and 104 diagrams and sketches, according to Church & State magazine.

Offhand, it sounds like it might be a good book for anyone interested in Grand Canyon geology. And it seem to have a nice price also ($19.36 at Amazon.com).

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JonF, posted 07-01-2016 8:56 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 29 of 46 (787299)
07-09-2016 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-08-2016 9:44 PM


Re: O.k.
quote:

I don't doubt that the scientists are honest people, but trusting in fallible science over the Bible is a lost cause.

I think they might have more respect for it than you, so I see this very differently.

quote:

And now you act as if there's something wrong with my not sharing your opinion of dates? And you don't even bother to give your opinion though you agonize excessively about it.

You don't know the dates, but people are supposed to "fit" history into them.

quote:

Since the Flood occurred about 2200 BC or thereabouts, the dating of Egypt a thousand years earlier is wrong. Period.

But the Septuagint add 500-700 years to the dates of the post flood patriarchs. But it also said, in Exodus 12, the Israelites "430 years" journey was in "Egypt and Canaan" to avoid a contradiction with other data.

On top of that, you can't pin it down to anything much within a 10% accuracy range despite the severely crunched chronology you impose. You are strict on the one hand, but a floating liberal on the other.

quote:

I can look up the biblical dates but your attitude doesn't inspire me to do so. Off the top of my head Abraham lived around 1900 BC and Moses some 4 to 500 years later. As long as you give no reason to care in the context of this discussion I'll leave it at that.

There have been something like 3 dozen Biblically names kings (pagan and Israelite) and biblical characters discovered in archaeology, but none from before 1000 BCE. 0 for 100 is the discoveries in the archaeological record before 1000 BCE despite the hard work of historians, archaeologists, and scholars.

Any attempt to pin down Moses and Abraham in the ancient Middle Eastern historical record will be doomed to dozens and dozens of different (purely speculative) decades in the historical record to put them in.

And you won't be able to place them anywhere either.

That's the problem.

The Amarna records of the 14th century are there, but the Israelites (and the Hebrew language) are not.

The Bibles we have contradict themselves on how long the Israelites were in Egypt.

The time after the Exodus till the Temple of Solomon is full of contradictions.

The evidence for the Temple of Solomon has turned out to be forgery after forgery.

The Bible's we have offer contradictory dates from the time of the flood till Babel and then to the time of Abraham.

Let the historians do their work, then you do the work to match the history offered in the Bible (if you can demonstrate any desire to work it out).

Why do you even worry about creation and the flood?

You don't even care to grasp the post flood period. It isn't too hard too calculate what the Septuagint and King James text says about the time from the flood till Babel. Granted they contradict each other. But Jesus, his family, and the Apostles preferred the Septuagint so that might be a clue for where you should start. Start with the Septuagint. Then get to your preferred Bible text.

Just a suggestion since you keep sticking your nose into things (a millimeter deep in a universe trillions of trillions of miles long)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 9:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:25 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25609
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 30 of 46 (787301)
07-09-2016 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by LamarkNewAge
07-09-2016 12:15 PM


Re: O.k.
You prefer extrabiblical information and judge me by it, which is utterly irrelevant since I consider the Bible to be the standard for all historical judgments it can be applied to. And if you want to be specific, I take the KJV as the most authentic, the newer translations all being based on the bogus revision of 1881 based on bogus Greek texts and further compromised by bad English translation. Debate does require some agreement on fundamentals. You and I share few to none.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 12:15 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 1:09 PM Faith has responded
 Message 32 by jar, posted 07-09-2016 7:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017