Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 10-20-2018 4:21 PM
198 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
 Total: 840,467 Year: 15,290/29,783 Month: 1,234/1,502 Week: 232/492 Day: 27/25 Hour: 3/9

 Rew Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17 Next
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 166 of 242 (789241) 08-12-2016 1:50 AM Reply to: Message 165 by ICANT08-12-2016 1:29 AM

 But if you start with a relativity flat elevation and the water is rising from all directions as the sea is rising at 1 " per minute the water would rise like the tide coming in on the beach.

Sigh. Wrong.

The velocity is generated by the water rushing to fill in an area in which there was not water. It is not caused strictly by the water level rising in the ocean, but from a combination of water falling from the sky, and presumably rushing towards the sea, some water coming from the "fountains of the deep" which may or may not be on land or ocean, and the rising of the sea level from a combination of the two. That leaves plenty of opportunity to generate velocity. There is not enough detail in the description in the Bible to set that velocity at either a high or a low level. All we know is that the water levels themselves rose gently. But of course you know better.

Whether the flood waters did or did not carve features such as the grand canyon due to the flow of the flood waters is neither confirmed or denied by the text. Both you and Faith are just guessing.

Even if the Flood was strictly a matter of water rising in level at one inch per minute due to water added only to the ocean, it is still possible that such an increase could result in enormous velocities of water across dry land. To calculate the velocity would involve something like this: Area of land * rate of increase in water level gives the volumetric flow rate. Divide the volumetric flow rate by the perimeter times the unit of height measurement for the height to generate a velocity number. Note that the rate of increase in water level is only one of the factors to be considered, and that the calculation given assumes a completely flat earth.

 I say relativity flat as there was no place the plates would have been diving under each other to make the mountain ranges yet.

The Bible says that there were high mountains at the time. Presumably Moses knew what a high mountain was when he wrote Genesis well after the time of the Flood or the "division of the earth" at Peleg, right? But of course you know better.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

 This message is a reply to: Message 165 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 1:29 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 168 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 3:02 AM NoNukes has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 167 of 242 (789242) 08-12-2016 2:17 AM Reply to: Message 158 by Pressie08-11-2016 8:20 AM

Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Pressie

 Pressie writes:Really? You think that it's an assumption? You really need a basic education.

Yes Really.

Meteorologist Alfred Wegener wrote, The Origin of Continents and Oceans in 1915. This was the beginning of the debate of plate tectonic's.

There was no one before that who made any notes about what the movement of the plates was.

So there can only be an assumption that they have always been the same.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 158 by Pressie, posted 08-11-2016 8:20 AM Pressie has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 170 by Pressie, posted 08-12-2016 8:56 AM ICANT has responded Message 172 by ringo, posted 08-12-2016 11:52 AM ICANT has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 168 of 242 (789244) 08-12-2016 3:02 AM Reply to: Message 166 by NoNukes08-12-2016 1:50 AM

Hi NoNukwa

 NoNukes writes:The Bible says that there were high mountains at the time. Presumably Moses knew what a high mountain was when he wrote Genesis well after the time of the Flood or the "division of the earth" at Peleg, right? But of course you know better.

Moses did not translate the Hebrew into English and I doubt if he actually knew what the layout of the early earth was. He did know what it was like in his days but the single land mass had been divided in the days of Peleg which was at least 100 years after the flood.

The Hebrew word translated mountains is also translated hills.

 NoNukes writes:Whether the flood waters did or did not carve features such as the grand canyon due to the flow of the flood waters is neither confirmed or denied by the text. Both you and Faith are just guessing.

The Grand Canyon did not exist until at least 100 years after the flood, as the earth was not divided yet.

 NoNukes writes:The velocity is generated by the water rushing to fill in an area in which there was not water. It is not caused strictly by the water level rising in the ocean, but from a combination of water falling from the sky, and presumably rushing towards the sea, some water coming from the "fountains of the deep" which may or may not be on land or ocean, and the rising of the sea level from a combination of the two. That leaves plenty of opportunity to generate velocity.

How much the velocity could have been would be determined by the elevation and size of the land which is unknown. We only know what it looks like now anything else is an assumption on our part.

 NoNukes writes: All we know is that the water levels themselves rose gently. But of course you know better.

I don't understand this statement.

I am the one trying to explain that the rising water would do little damage. In fact long before Peleg was born there would have been no trace of the flood. But after the earth was divided in the days of Peleg there would have been no possible way of seeing any evidence of the flood. You could probably find places that there had been a flood in the past in many places but you would not be able to see a flood layer all over the earth.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2016 1:50 AM NoNukes has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 169 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2016 3:17 AM ICANT has responded Message 171 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2016 10:08 AM ICANT has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 169 of 242 (789245) 08-12-2016 3:17 AM Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT08-12-2016 3:02 AM

 I don't understand this statement.I am the one trying to explain that the rising water would do little damage.

1) I described my position in detail. In essence it is that a gentle rising of levels may cause extensive damage. I don't have anything more to add to it.

2) You have already admitted that your "explaining" includes making assumptions that are not contained or indicated by the Biblical text. Those assumptions are for the sole purpose of coming up with the conclusion that rising water did little damage. But the Bible itself does not tell us that the rising water did little damage. Accordingly, what you call an explanation is simply an exposition on your personal take regarding the flood. If you have some textual support for your position, I'd be interested in seeing that.

ABE:

 The Grand Canyon did not exist until at least 100 years after the flood, as the earth was not divided yet.

Says ICANT, the authority on the pre Peleg geography. Was any of the landmass currently known as Africa a part of the initial landmass? How about the continent now known as North America. Was any part of that a portion of the initial landmass? How the heck would you even know that? You make up stuff just as freely as does Faith.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

 This message is a reply to: Message 168 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 3:02 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 173 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2016 3:15 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 1903
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010

 Message 170 of 242 (789260) 08-12-2016 8:56 AM Reply to: Message 167 by ICANT08-12-2016 2:17 AM

Re: Science vs. creation "science"
 ICANT writes:Yes Really. Meteorologist Alfred Wegener wrote, The Origin of Continents and Oceans in 1915. This was the beginning of the debate of plate tectonic's.
The subject of Plate Tectonics has never been an assumption. Therefore I'm not to sure why you write about it here. Trying to change the subject, I guess?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 167 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 2:17 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 174 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2016 3:24 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 171 of 242 (789265) 08-12-2016 10:08 AM Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT08-12-2016 3:02 AM

 He did know what it was like in his days but the single land mass had been divided in the days of Peleg which was at least 100 years after the flood.

So you are saying that humans were around 175 million years ago? Because that's the most recent time there was a single land mass.

(And don't tell me you disagree with dating "assumptions." I created a whole new thread on that subject--which you've ignored.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

 This message is a reply to: Message 168 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 3:02 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 175 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2016 3:32 AM Coyote has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 15409
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8

 Message 172 of 242 (789271) 08-12-2016 11:52 AM Reply to: Message 167 by ICANT08-12-2016 2:17 AM

Re: Science vs. creation "science"
 ICANT writes:There was no one before that who made any notes about what the movement of the plates was.So there can only be an assumption that they have always been the same.

Nobody wrote about gravity before gravity was discovered. Yet it seems to be a reasonable assumption that gravity has always behaved in the same way.

The default position would be that the plates have always moved in a similar way to the way they move now. You would need some concrete reason to assume otherwise.

Edited by ringo, : Speling.

 This message is a reply to: Message 167 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 2:17 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 176 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2016 4:20 AM ringo has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 173 of 242 (789316) 08-13-2016 3:15 AM Reply to: Message 169 by NoNukes08-12-2016 3:17 AM

Hi NoNukes

 NoNukes writes:1) I described my position in detail. In essence it is that a gentle rising of levels may cause extensive damage. I don't have anything more to add to it.

It did not seem like detail to me. It sounded more like an assertion.

You said the erosion would take place because of the water rushing to where there was no water. That is not much detail when you don't even know the shape of the land mass or the elevation of the land mass.

 NoNukes writes:But the Bible itself does not tell us that the rising water did little damage.

But it does. Genesis chapter 8 tells us that not long after it stopped raining that a dove was sent out from the ark and came back with an olive leaf.

It don't sound like much damage was done to the earth.
It wasn't long before Noah was farming.

So where is all the damage you were alluding too?

 NoNukes writes:Says ICANT, the authority on the pre Peleg geography

Sorry NoNukes I just believe the Bible.

 NoNukes writes:Was any of the landmass currently known as Africa a part of the initial landmass? How about the continent now known as North America. Was any part of that a portion of the initial landmass? How the heck would you even know that? You make up stuff just as freely as does Faith.

All I know is there was a dry land mass that was protruding out of the water that was gathered in one place.

How big it was or how high above sea level it was protruding there is no way of knowing.

Assumption
I would assume that all the continental plates were there is some form. How much of any of them that was protruding out of the water at the time of the flood is unknown.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 169 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2016 3:17 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 174 of 242 (789317) 08-13-2016 3:24 AM Reply to: Message 170 by Pressie08-12-2016 8:56 AM

Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Pressie

As to their existence there is no question.

But to believe they have always moved at the same rate of speed is an assumption. In fact there are plates moving at different speeds. Some at 1" per year and other at 3' to 4".

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 170 by Pressie, posted 08-12-2016 8:56 AM Pressie has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 175 of 242 (789318) 08-13-2016 3:32 AM Reply to: Message 171 by Coyote08-12-2016 10:08 AM

Hi Coyote

Your 175 million years ago is based on your assumption that the plates have maintained the same rate of speed .

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 171 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2016 10:08 AM Coyote has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 176 of 242 (789319) 08-13-2016 4:20 AM Reply to: Message 172 by ringo08-12-2016 11:52 AM

Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi ringo

 ringo writes:Nobody wrote about gravity before gravity was discovered. Yet it seems to be a reasonable assumption that gravity has always behaved in the same way.

Key word: REASONABLE ASSUMPTION

 ringo writes:Nobody wrote about gravity before gravity was discovered. Yet it seems to be a reasonable assumption that gravity has always behaved in the same way.

Key word: REASONABLE ASSUMPTION

So both were based on an assumption.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 172 by ringo, posted 08-12-2016 11:52 AM ringo has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 177 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2016 5:51 AM ICANT has responded Message 179 by ringo, posted 08-13-2016 11:50 AM ICANT has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 177 of 242 (789321) 08-13-2016 5:51 AM Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT08-13-2016 4:20 AM

Re: Science vs. creation "science"
ICANT, you seem to be making the standard creationist mistake of equating "assumption" with "wild-ass guess and almost certainly wrong."

Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean the assumptions are wrong. You have to come up with some reason to support your conclusion that the assumptions are wrong.

Also, you previously stated that scientific dating was wrong because "assumptions." I started a whole new thread for you to back up your claims, but you haven't done so.

Perhaps its easier for you to just cry, "Assumptions!" than it is to actually show how they're wrong?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

 This message is a reply to: Message 176 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2016 4:20 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 180 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2016 4:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7

 Message 178 of 242 (789324) 08-13-2016 8:57 AM

so maybe we can head back towards the topic
What would the Biblical Flood be like?

Based on what is written, what MUST be seen?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

ringo
Member
Posts: 15409
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8

 Message 179 of 242 (789335) 08-13-2016 11:50 AM Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT08-13-2016 4:20 AM

Re: Science vs. creation "science"
 ICANT writes:So both were based on an assumption.

REASONABLE assumption - i.e. an assumption based on reason.

You have no reason to assume that the tectonic plates moves at a fundamentally different rate at some time in the past. That would be an UNreasonable assumption.

 This message is a reply to: Message 176 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2016 4:20 AM ICANT has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 181 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2016 4:56 PM ringo has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 180 of 242 (789428) 08-14-2016 4:47 PM Reply to: Message 177 by Coyote08-13-2016 5:51 AM

Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Coyote

 Coyote writes:Also, you previously stated that scientific dating was wrong because "assumptions."

Refresh my memory of where I said that.

I did say I would disagree with your dating of the time that the land mass was in one place. Which would be due to the assumption that the plates have always moved at the same pace.

So you misread my statement and jumped to conclusions.

 Coyote writes:Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean the assumptions are wrong. You have to come up with some reason to support your conclusion that the assumptions are wrong.

I do not argue the age of the universe or earth as I believe it is older than you do. So forget all your YEC arguments.

But the reason the plates are moving at the speed they are today is because the earth was divided in the days of Peleg in a nano second. They just haven't come to a complete stop yet.

 Coyote writes:Perhaps its easier for you to just cry, "Assumptions!" than it is to actually show how they're wrong?

An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Just because you accept certain assumptions does not make them true.

My assumptions have just as much evidence as your assumptions.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 177 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2016 5:51 AM Coyote has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Rew Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17 Next