|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
That has always struck me as the funniest of the gymnastics in the creationist clown show. "Evolution is impossible because it happens much faster than you think."
... evolution defeats evolution....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
I was addressing what I quoted - i.e. your claim that the only evolution is microevolution. The irony is that in order to "disprove" macroevolution you have to pretend that microevolution happened impossibly fast after the flood. No, evolution is impossible because it uses up genetic diversity. Maybe you're too young to remember but creationists used to deny microevolution too. Creation is a slippery slope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The Bible doesn't say that.
Bazillions of fossils is evidence of the great fecundity of the pre-Flood world, where the land was all green and kept moist by mists, there were no deserts or other uninhabitable places, and the oceans were teeming with creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
That's exactly what the bible says:
edge writes:
According to whom? The Bible says no such thing. Possibly. But how could they when the eruption was supposed to end all life on the planet?quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Here on the prairies we have rocks coming up out of the earth all the time, lifted by the freeze/thaw cycle. They were originally eroded smooth and brought here by glaciers and then lots and lots of sediment was deposited on top of them. How could a single flood event accomplish all of that?
Let me ask: Would you expect to find the source of any of those rocks in a sedimentary layer buried under that beach?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
As I said, the rocks are buried down there in the sediment. If the sediment came from the flood, how did the rocks get down there?
I think of the glaciers as following the Flood, the ice age as having been created by the climatic conditions produced in the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I did. Genesis 6:7 and Genesis 6:13 show that God's intention was "the end of all flesh". Forty days and nights of rain, along with the fountains of the deep, was the means to that end.
Can you give me chapter and verse where an eruption took when talking about the fountains of the deep. ICANT writes:
If you're saying that the fountains of the deep were plain old ordinary everyday springs, you're shooting yourself in the foot. All they do is recycle water and there ain't enough of it for the flood as described in Genesis. Floodists have to make up magical fountains shooting water from magical subterranean oceans to account for the depth of water.
You do know we have fountains of the deep today and we call them springs don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
And the "eruption" of the fountains of the deep was a part of that idea.
I see nothing about eruption there either. But yes the idea was to destroy all creatures that breathed air. ICANT writes:
There's no reason to think there ever were any. It's just a made-up fantasy.
But I am talking about fountains opened up from huge supplies of water as the body of water in Asia. There could have been many of them. ICANT writes:
If God miraculously turned the fountains on and off, why do you say anything about science at all? Why not just say God poofed the water into existence and then poofed it out of existence?
The water being under great pressure would come forth through what ever hole was made in the rock which hole was later pluged when God closed them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The "division of the earth" refers to the proliferation of languages after the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). It has nothing to do with land masses.
As the single land mass would have no mountains as the earth had not been divided at that point. That happened at least 109 years after the flood as the earth was divided in the days of Peleg.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
We're talking about the supposed "fountains of the deep" and edge called it an eruption. We're using HIS concept of an eruption, not yours.
The Bible says nothing about an "eruption", it says that God opened the fountains of the deep. ICANT writes:
The Bible doesn't say that.
He chose to have the water available in the earth and sky to use for the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
You don't know why the author chose a certain word.
Since the author knew the meaning of the words he used he chose one that best show what he was trying to point out. ICANT writes:
You don't know what he was trying to point out. He was trying to point out that the land mass that appeared in Genesis 1:9 was divided with watercourses which is exactly what we see. The mention of the earth being divided is in the context of the story of the Tower of Babel. If the author was concerned about conveying his intentions, he woulda/coulda/shoulda been careful about the context. He did say in Genesis 10:32, "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood." The NATIONS were divided, not the land they lived on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I'm just pointing out where you're wrong. You don't have to respond.
Good then discuss it with edge. ICANT writes:
That doesn't say anything about God providing enough water for the Flood.
quote: Sounds to me like He supplied enough water to cover all the land mass as it was covered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
There can be a lot of reasons.
Why does a author use any word? ICANT writes:
I've been known to change a word on this forum just to avoid a line break. Why do you use any words? Words are flexible. Meanings change. It's ridiculous to pretend that you can know exactly what somebody meant thousands of years ago because of one word.
ICANT writes:
Why did he talk about dividing nations instead of dividing land? That's the context. The context is more important than your attempts at Hebrew scholarship.
Then why did he use a word that is used of watercourses dividing land rather than one which he knew and used to mean scatter the people? ICANT writes:
You're shooting yourself in the foot. In English, divide and separate can be used more-or-less interchangeably. Why can two different Hebrew words not be used for the same concept? This word means: 1.to separate, divide. Do those 2 words look like they are the same word? Remember that the ONLY context for both words is the division/separation of the nations after the Tower of Babel. One reference in Job does not mean that one word can ONLY mean separation of water.
ICANT writes:
What you think doesn't matter. The division of the earth in Genesis has nothing to do with Pangea. Pangea separated long before there was any civilization.
Why did the author choose the one he did in verse 25? I think he used it because it had something to do with water dividing land.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I've already showed you that your interpretation makes no sense in context. The division happened long after the Flood, so it doesn't make sense to tie it physically to the Flood. And since the time of Peleg coincides nicely with the time of the Tower of Babel, it makes much more sense to connect those two events. Then show me where my Hebrew words are incorrect and do not mean exactly what I said they mean. Once again, Pangea separated long before there were any civilized people on the earth. Even IF the Bible said what you claim, it DOES NOT agree with science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
If you don't understand what the English word "magic" means, why should anybody accept what you say about the meaning of Hebrew words?
God moved each continent to where they are in a nano second. No magic at all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024