Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth of Genesis 1:9
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 76 of 112 (504022)
03-24-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Peg
03-24-2009 1:29 AM


Re: Land Mass
Peg writes:
you may have noted i have said that the bible 'does not' contain such information
OK, fair enough. My apologies for missing that.
You are speculating that the mountains arose due to varied pressure from above.
Before this flood you had a stasis.
Points A and B did not move under the atmosphere since the pressure was equal from above.
Now we add flood waters.
If A and B are at the same level, or nearly so which is your suggestion, (small mountains preflood), then there is no significant pressure differential due to the flood waters.
These videos are a little slow and the audio a bit out of sync but give them a watch in your spare time. You don't have to accept the time scales or theories if you don't want to. Just collect the bare facts/data. It is that collection of facts/data that led early Christian geologists to abandon the biblical interpretations that held sway previously.
Mountain Building - Lesson 11 - Part 1 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okC5S8Z9WXs&feature=related
Part 2 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okBTXLISEFo&feature=related
Part 3 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogS6pRkouiY&feature=related
Part 4 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq_Rw8YWCpA&feature=related
Part 5 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5wxvhZSWaw&feature=related
Part 6 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaZPpVetK3A&feature=related
Part 7 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjCSNQiAA2s&feature=related

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 1:29 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 3:06 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 77 of 112 (504027)
03-24-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by shalamabobbi
03-24-2009 2:10 AM


Re: Land Mass
thanks for the links but i have no speakers
shalamabobbi writes:
Before this flood you had a stasis.
Points A and B did not move under the atmosphere since the pressure was equal from above.
Now we add flood waters.
If A and B are at the same level, or nearly so which is your suggestion, (small mountains preflood), then there is no significant pressure differential due to the flood waters.
Not even if the crust in one area is shallower then another?
Also, we know that the climate during the Mesozoic period was warm, there were no ice caps at all, even at the poles! Plants grew lush in a sub-tropical climate. Geologists have also confirmed that the land was lower then it is now and there were no high mountains making physical or climatic barriers.
So its not incorrect to say that the earth was flatter then it is now at some time in the past...geology shows this. Even Antarctica was once a lush green land where herd animals roamed.
Something has to account for the massive changes that have happened in recent times, there is geological phenomena such as the raising of old coastlines and sandstone mountains. We know sandstone is normally found below sea level, yet there are huge mountains of sandstone found in places where there is no sea such as Echo Point in Katoomba (see pic)
And if the water pressure of such a flood were equal to 2 tons per square inch, as some have suggested, that weight is sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly
We know the change was rapid because the polar regions were suddenly plunged into a deep freeze that trapped animals who still had green grass in their mouths and stomachs, as has been discovered in modern times.
Im surely convinced it was the Noachian flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-24-2009 2:10 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by anglagard, posted 03-24-2009 3:28 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 79 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-24-2009 4:43 AM Peg has replied
 Message 82 by DrJones*, posted 03-24-2009 1:52 PM Peg has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 78 of 112 (504029)
03-24-2009 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Peg
03-24-2009 3:06 AM


Re: Land Mass
Unbelievable ignorance of geology. Rox, moose, anyone for now?
Two weeks, I'll be back.
Shouldn't have even looked.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 3:06 AM Peg has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 79 of 112 (504032)
03-24-2009 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Peg
03-24-2009 3:06 AM


Re: Land Mass
Peg writes:
Not even if the crust in one area is shallower then another?
That would have no effect on the pressure due to flood waters above. That is a function of the depth of the water only.
What is below the crust? Is its' density much different? Is it a gas? Then is it compressible? Even though you increase the pressure on it, if you do so evenly there is no mechanism to elevate mountains with a flood.
Think of a beam balance or a teeter totter. If the weight is increased a hundred fold there will still be balance if it is increased on both sides equally.
Here is a link with illustrations that explain current understanding about how mountains are formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 3:06 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 5:54 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 80 of 112 (504037)
03-24-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by shalamabobbi
03-24-2009 4:43 AM


Re: Land Mass
shalamabobbi writes:
What is below the crust? Is its' density much different? Is it a gas? Then is it compressible? Even though you increase the pressure on it, if you do so evenly there is no mechanism to elevate mountains with a flood.
except for if it happens along a fault or a Continental Plate.
Faults could easily be widened if enough pressure was excerted on them and the continental plates float on the viscous plastic asthenosphere which is quite movable. I suppose its hard to speculate what might happen because we havnt seen a flood of the proportions of the biblical flood, but surely its not hard to imagine how such a force might affect the earth?
If tectonic convergence of crustal plates can produce rock deformation, uplift, and faulting then surely pressure from above would do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-24-2009 4:43 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-24-2009 2:52 PM Peg has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 81 of 112 (504070)
03-24-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Peg
03-23-2009 11:55 PM


Re: Land Mass
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
Gen 8:13 "Now ...it came about that the waters had drained from off the earth"
Clearly the bible writer described the waters as 'draining off the earth' as opposed to being transported in any other method.
First off I don't know what English prevision text you found this in. The Hebrew text in 8:13 has no word that is translated draining off.
The Hebrew word חךב transliterated charab is translated dried up.
The LXX has subsided.
Water evaporates into the atmosphere.
Water goes into the ground, our aquifer.
Peg writes:
likely there were mountains before the flood but they probably were not as high as they are today for the reason that the weight of the water likely changed the landscape. The crust of the earth is relatively thin and with enough weight, it could have been pushed upwards or downwards by the force of the water.
The Hebrew word translated mountains has the primary meaning of hill. But at the time of translation there were many mountains, which probably influenced the translators. Especially as they did not see the land mass all in one place.
If Mount Everest, the tallest point on earth (29,035 feet), was set in the Mariana Trench there would still be 7,166 feet of water above it.
The pressure at that depth is around 18,000 lbs per square inch. So if that pressure is not popping up mountains constantly, what makes you think the water pressure did during the flood?
Peg writes:
all three of the above indicate that the water came from the sky, not the earth. If the water came from the earth, it would have enveloped the earth like a swelling tide, but the bible does not say this is what happened.
Is Genesis 7:11 missing in your Bible?
Genesis 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.
What do you think the fountains of the deep was?
And yes the flood was like the tide at the Bay of Fundy, it rises 55 feet every high tide. Just something God left behind so we can know water can rise an awful lot without doing catrosphic damage.
As to floodgates being opened a quick search did not turn up floodgates in the text. So where did you get it from.
The windows of Heaven was opened and it rained for 40 days.
Peg writes:
So im sure you are correct in believing that the earth was covered in water and the dry land was bought together in one place, but you must consider the genesis account about the waters being separated on the 2nd day to create an expanse happened before the dry land was bought together on the 3rd day.
The land mass was still covered with water after the waters of Genesis 1:6, 7 was uplifted.
When the land mass was uplifted that would have created voids which would have been filled with water.
There is presently enough water in the mantel that if extracted to our present water would cover Mount Everest much more than the fifteen cubits of Genesis 7:20.
Peg writes:
so if you know that there were waters above, why are you wondering where the flood waters came from?
I have no doubt about where the flood waters came from.
The windows of Heaven opened and it rained for 40 days.
The fountains of the deep opened up and the sea rose very rapidly.
You can only put so much water in the heavens without building the hammered out dome that some claim's the Bible supports, which it does not. Or you must go to Vail's canopy theory.
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 73 by Peg, posted 03-23-2009 11:55 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 03-25-2009 4:20 AM ICANT has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 82 of 112 (504080)
03-24-2009 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Peg
03-24-2009 3:06 AM


Re: Land Mass
We know the change was rapid because the polar regions were suddenly plunged into a deep freeze that trapped animals who still had green grass in their mouths and stomachs, as has been discovered in modern times.
Are you still bringing this up? You've never shown that having undigested food is evidence of a sudden freezing as opposed to dieing and being frozen shortly after eating. There is no evidence that the change was rapid.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 3:06 AM Peg has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 83 of 112 (504089)
03-24-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Peg
03-24-2009 5:54 AM


Re: Land Mass
Peg writes:
I suppose its hard to speculate what might happen
but surely its not hard to imagine how such a force might affect the earth?
In the same sentence no less. This is the result of cognitive dissonance as pointed out by RAZD and others.
It is not that hard to speculate what happens as this is all basic physics.
The problem is that pressure from flood waters is just that, pressure. Pressure bearing on a surface results in a force.
Underwater at any particular depth there is a uniform pressure but it is acting in all directions.
What this means is that for any object like a submarine for instance it will not experience any net force and move as a result of being submerged.
The pressure on one side of the object and resulting forces will be offset by the forces on the opposite side and cancel out. No forces mean no acceleration, no acceleration means no motion or developed velocity.
So a crustal plate will, if submerged, still be an object, albeit a large one, that experiences forces from the increased pressure that cancel out leaving no net force to effect a lateral movement.
Tectonic plates move because the hot liquid interior of the earth moves and there is a drag force on the crustal plates.
Simply flooding/draining the ocean basins will not create mountain like structures on the ocean floors.
If tectonic convergence of crustal plates can produce rock deformation, uplift, and faulting then surely pressure from above would do so.
One is lateral pressure, force due to drag really, the other is pressure due to a vertical column of water above. They are not equivalent in any sense of the word.
I doubt any geologists are going to jump in here and explain your post's errors until you show a willingness to learn instead of simply thinking in the mode of apologetics. You will continue to wander in the realm of "but what ifs" because all the criticism of creationists is self contradictory and uncoordinated presenting no unified argument, as is evidenced by the exchange between you and ICANT. The other problem of creationist thinking is the "50 first dates" syndrome. Point out an error and you think progress has been made, only to discover that tomorrow the error has been re-adopted once again.
If creationists want to waste their time and energy walking down this fruitless path, it does not follow that scientists will feel compelled to waste an equivalent amount of time trying to point out the flaws and errors in creationist thinking.
The responsibility is on you to make some progress. Like I said, you don't have to come to the conclusions of main stream science right off the bat. Just study the facts and make yourself aware of our current data geological and biological. When you've done that to a sufficient degree you will find it increasingly difficult to fit to a model of a 6,000 year old earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 5:54 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2009 4:32 PM shalamabobbi has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 84 of 112 (504100)
03-24-2009 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by shalamabobbi
03-24-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Land Mass
Hi shalamabobbi,
shalamabobbi writes:
Simply flooding/draining the ocean basins will not create mountain like structures on the ocean floors.
It might not create mountains but it would sure reveal a lot of mountains.
The longest mountain range in the world is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
shalamabobbi writes:
When you've done that to a sufficient degree you will find it increasingly difficult to fit to a model of a 6,000 year old earth.
I don't get where you get the impression Peg is YEC. I argued too many days with Peg about making the six days of creation into long periods of time.
My earth is older than Peg's or sciences. So I got no problem with time.
shalamabobbi when I do all that studying and examining everything at my disposal I have to come to some conclusions.
Any conclusion I make will be determined by taking the word of some man.
It boils down to who do you trust?
Those who let you down and change every time you turn around.
Or someone who has never let you down, and has never changed.
I choose my Friend who has never let me down.
You make your own choice.
We will both live and die with out choices.
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 83 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-24-2009 2:52 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-24-2009 5:27 PM ICANT has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 85 of 112 (504114)
03-24-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
03-24-2009 4:32 PM


Re: Land Mass
ICANT writes:
The longest mountain range in the world is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
I'm glad to see you don't think it was created by the waters in the oceans then. Maybe Peg will disagree with you on that point?
I don't get where you get the impression Peg is YEC.
Belief in a global flood maybe? It may not necessitate YEC but it shares a lot of similar problems. Most who accept a literal flood also accept a 6,000 year old earth as well, so that is a useful frame of reference in these types of discussions.
Not accepting the ToE also has the same kinds of issues whether or not you allow for long periods of time.
It is one of coordinating vast amounts of data into one coordinated whole.
Those who let you down and change every time you turn around.
Science is not changing its findings, it is refining them, and zeroing in on a picture that explains all the data.
Any conclusion I make will be determined by taking the word of some man.
It boils down to who do you trust?
Accepting science does not equate with atheism.
Promoting a literal interpretation of an Eve created by cloning from a rib, one of your ideas from a thread somewhere, and an actual talking snake however may create a few atheists
Maybe your "Friend" will hold you accountable for that??
Edited by shalamabobbi, : white space is not your friend..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2009 4:32 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 86 of 112 (504189)
03-25-2009 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
03-24-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Land Mass
No, Gen 7:11 is not missing in my bible, I should have been clearer. Gen 7:11 does say that the 'Watery deep.' was broken open. In the Hebrew the word is tehohm′; in the LXX its 'the abyss'; and in the Vulgte its 'the great abyss.'
In the first creative period Gen 1:2 mentions this watery deep as covering the whole earth. It uses the same hebrew word 'tehohm' and in Gen 1:6 it says that this 'watery deep' was separated so that there was an 'expanse between the waters and the waters'
This explains why there are two watery deeps...one above the earth and one on the earth. And it explains why Gen 7:11 says that 'the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened'
It very well could be that both were broken open, but im not sure how the earths watery deep was broken open.
ICANT writes:
The Hebrew word translated mountains has the primary meaning of hill. But at the time of translation there were many mountains, which probably influenced the translators. Especially as they did not see the land mass all in one place.
If Mount Everest, the tallest point on earth (29,035 feet), was set in the Mariana Trench there would still be 7,166 feet of water above it.
The pressure at that depth is around 18,000 lbs per square inch. So if that pressure is not popping up mountains constantly, what makes you think the water pressure did during the flood?
Im sure you know that the Bible does not say that any mountains in Noah’s day were as tall as Mount Everest. And we know that Scientists have said that in the past many of the mountains were much lower than at present and that some have even been pushed up from under the seas...and as you mentioned, some are in the sea.
We know its also believed that there was a time when the oceans themselves were much smaller then they are today and that the continents were larger as is testified to by river channels that extend far out under the oceans.
If we consider that there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level...what might the landscape be if this was not the case. If we could remove even half of the earths water, then the landcape would be hugely changed just as it would if we then added the water again.
ICANT writes:
As to floodgates being opened a quick search did not turn up floodgates in the text. So where did you get it from.
The windows of Heaven was opened and it rained for 40 days.
my bible uses floodgates and its taken from the literal meaning of 'windows' as you have mentioned (the footnote puts the literal rendering as 'Windows' and in the LXX as 'Cataracts'). I guess a modern language bible would prefer the use of 'floodgate' as opposed to 'window' because its easier to make a mental picture of a floodgate then of a window.
If you look in Chpt 6:17, it reads in my bible 'As for me, here i am bringing the deluge'
Some bibles use the word 'floodwaters' In the hebrew the word translated into 'Deluge/Floodwaters' is ham-mab.bul` and it literally means 'heavenly ocean' which means the water is in a different location to the waters spoken of in chpt 7:11

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2009 12:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 03-25-2009 11:28 PM Peg has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 87 of 112 (504261)
03-25-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peg
03-25-2009 4:20 AM


Re: Land Mass
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
No, Gen 7:11 is not missing in my bible, I should have been clearer. Gen 7:11 does say that the 'Watery deep.' was broken open. In the Hebrew the word is tehohm′; in the LXX its 'the abyss'; and in the Vulgte its 'the great abyss.'
No. It says the fountains of the deep.
That means the springs in the ocean floor opened up.
The Hebrew word transliterated tĕhowm has the primary meaning of:
1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea.
If you will notice your abyss is fourth in line.
In the LXX the Greek word buthos with the meaning of:
The bottom or depth of the sea, the sea itself, the deep sea.
No abyss mentioned.
Peg writes:
This explains why there are two watery deeps...one above the earth and one on the earth. And it explains why Gen 7:11 says that 'the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened'
It very well could be that both were broken open, but im not sure how the earths watery deep was broken open.
If you are bound and determined to have a water or ice canopy around the Earth, I guess you just have to have one.
The Hebrew word transliterated 'arubbah has the meaning of:
1) lattice, window,
Do you know the difference between a floodgate and a window?
You can be sure the springs of the deep was opened up because the Bible says so in Genesis 7:11.
Peg writes:
We know its also believed that there was a time when the oceans themselves were much smaller then they are today and that the continents were larger as is testified to by river channels that extend far out under the oceans.
Actually there was a time when there was no oceans.
Genesis 2:5 tells us it had never rained.
The only water mentioned in the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, was a river.
Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
In Genesis 2:19 the man named all the creatures God had created, but it's very odd there was no water creatures created. Must have been because there was no oceans. So science was right, land before oceans.
Peg writes:
If we consider that there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level...what might the landscape be if this was not the case. If we could remove even half of the earths water, then the landcape would be hugely changed just as it would if we then added the water again.
But there is 5 times the amount of water in the oceans that is in the Earth's mantel.
Peg writes:
my bible uses floodgates and its taken from the literal meaning of 'windows' as you have mentioned (the footnote puts the literal rendering as 'Windows' and in the LXX as 'Cataracts'). I guess a modern language bible would prefer the use of 'floodgate' as opposed to 'window' because its easier to make a mental picture of a floodgate then of a window.
There is a vast difference in a window, (small opening) and flood-gate (very large opening).
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 86 by Peg, posted 03-25-2009 4:20 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-25-2009 11:51 PM ICANT has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 88 of 112 (504264)
03-25-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
03-25-2009 11:28 PM


Re: Land Mass
I know this is your thread ICANT so I don't want to intrude too much but..
Since neither you nor Peg is YEC and you are arguing about a flood etc, maybe you could tell me when this flood occured in the history of our old earth which you say you accept.
quote:
Previously, pine trees in North America have been cited as the oldest at 4,000 to 5,000-years-old, however the Swedish mountains contain a cluster of around 20 spruces that are over 8,000-years-old.
Page not found | Metro UK
The desert creosote bush
quote:
In a few areas of the Mojave Desert clonal creosote rings have been found that are several yards in diameter. Near Lucerne Valley, King Clone has an average diameter of 45 feet! Using radiocarbon dating and known growth rates of creosote, scientists have estimated the age of King Clone as 11,700 years.
Creosote Bush - Joshua Tree National Park (U.S. National Park Service)
quote:
43,000 year-old living plant - The 26-foot high King holly in Tasmania the world’s oldest living plant.
http://www.wonderquest.com/...oldest-plant-ship-jet-race.htm
Page not found - forests.org
Just some food for thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 03-25-2009 11:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2009 10:47 AM shalamabobbi has replied
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 03-28-2009 4:13 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 89 of 112 (504279)
03-26-2009 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ICANT
03-23-2009 11:55 AM


Re: Peleg
ICANT writes:
Hi Mich,
Michamus writes:
Still waiting on your reply to the rest of my post [Message #28] ICANT.
Sorry but I am having a hard time finding Hebrew Lexicons that give flown together for the collection of the waters, and eruption from the sea for the land appearing.
But I am still looking.
God Bless,
Still awaiting a resoonse ICANT.
It seems you are having plenty of time researching and responding to other peoples statements, but are having a rather difficult time responding to my post, which completely destroys your claim that Peleg refers to a physical earth division.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2009 11:55 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2009 10:55 AM Michamus has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 90 of 112 (504284)
03-26-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by shalamabobbi
03-25-2009 11:51 PM


Re: Land Mass
Hi shalamabobbi,
shalamabobbi writes:
I know this is your thread ICANT so I don't want to intrude too much but..
Intrude all you want.
shalamabobbi writes:
Since neither you nor Peg is YEC and you are arguing about a flood etc, maybe you could tell me when this flood occured in the history of our old earth which you say you accept.
There are many who try to put dates to events in the Bible. They go about it in many ways. As in Rrhain's timeline.
But the truth is the Bible does not give any dates for anything.
The closest the Bible comes to giving a date is in Genesis 1:1.
It says in the beginnings, but puts no actual dates on it. In other words Moses did not say in the year of our Lord xxxxxxxBC.
Many say well Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. But those books say he did.
Some say well Moses could not write and there was nothing to write on.
Well the people Moses was leading had been making clay bricks for some 400 years and Moses was educated in the house of Pharaoh.
There are clay tablets with writings on them that have been dated to 10k years as I understand it.
If there was known writings and materials to write on Moses wrote.
But as to your question when these events took place my guess would be just as bad as anybody's else's so I won't guess.
shalamabobbi writes:
quote:
Previously, pine trees in North America have been cited as the oldest at 4,000 to 5,000-years-old, however the Swedish mountains contain a cluster of around 20 spruces that are over 8,000-years-old.
Page not found | Metro UK
If I understant the article, the tree in the picture you see is not 8k years old but what the tree is growing out of is. Is that correct?
But they should be able to find things a lot older than that.
Genesis 1:11 tells us God called the grass, the herb, and the fruit tree, from their seed which was in the ground which had been covered with water.
That reminds me of when I was just a boy, we have a small lake that joins our property. Back in the 50's it went dry. So we set up a football field in the lake because the peat on the bottom was spongy and we could fall without getting hurt.
But before long all kinds of things were growing from this peat.
The lake would fill up and stay full for a year or two and then go dry again. The same plants in the same place would grow again.
Then the lake would fill up again and stay full for several years and then go dry again. Plants just like the ones before would appear again. None of these plants were growing anywhere in the area.
Also each time the lake filled up fish would appear again.
I always thought that was amazing.
That said, the land mass that was in one place was covered with water and just as soon as the water went back to where it came from the seed began to produce everything that was there before.
There is no way of knowing what the sea level of the land mass was.
This land mass was then divided which caused much land mass to be pushed up from the sea floor in different places explaining how there are sea creature fossils in and on mountains.
Water gets into the mantel by subduction and there is 5 times the amount of water there than is in the oceans.
If the land mass was instantly divided there would have been an awful lot of heat unless a miracle was performed. That heat would have caused a lot of water to go somewhere.
shalamabobbi writes:
quote:
43,000 year-old living plant - The 26-foot high King holly in Tasmania the world's oldest living plant.
Nice article, but you do know that the plant you was looking at is 300 or less years old as that is their life span.
It thrives in, "the cold wet gloom of Tasmanian gullies,".
Water then should not pose this plant a problem.
A little examination.
The age of the tree was estimated.
Remains were tested for age.
Concerning the creosote tree, "scientists have estimated the age of "King Clone" as 11,700 years"
We estimate, guess and a lot of other things that is fine.
But not when those things are presented as fact leaving out the estimated as is too often the case.
Food for thought.
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 88 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-25-2009 11:51 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-26-2009 4:37 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024