Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 188 (384256)
02-10-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
02-09-2007 9:50 PM


Re: This is old.
RAZD writes:
We'll have to wait for the next installment ... except they seem to have stopped in 2000. My guess is that they need to make another expedition, and given a certain altering of the world of politics in 2001 ....
LOL. Don't hold your breath on reactivation of research. Perhaps as NJ has alluded, they are dragging their feet on this since it likely would require a complete overhaul/retooling of their long standing science on flood geology and to admit that all along the Biblical flood history may have some science supportive of it.
This is what I've been saying about the Wyatt ship/boat sight and the coral encased chariot wheels at the relatively shallow region of the Gulf of Aqaba/Biblical Red Sea. Where are the mainline secularist scientists who should be out there to ether establish or refute this alleged evidence? They appear to have no interest whatsoever in jeopardizing their agenda driven science so deeply entrenched into mainline science academia.
If it were anything even remotely supportive of evolution they would be on it ASAP bigtime.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2007 9:50 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by CK, posted 02-10-2007 5:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 47 of 188 (384257)
02-10-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
02-10-2007 5:41 PM


Re: This is old.
quote:
Where are the mainline secularist scientists who should be out there to ether establish or refute this alleged evidence?
Is that a serious question? Why would a Scientist waste their time on a non-existant boat from a flood that never happened?
You might as well ask why people are not out debunking Thor's Hammer!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2007 5:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2007 6:23 PM CK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 188 (384260)
02-10-2007 6:10 PM


Baumgardner/IRC/Wyatt
I am aware that Dr. Baumgardner has rejected the Wyatt ark site based on tests which appear to be in conflict with those of Wyatt which are less sophisticated. However, one must understand that Baumgardner is an ICR board member and closely associated with ICR (Institute for Creation Research.) One must understand that ICR has for years before the Wyatt discovery, conducted expensive and extensive expeditions of their own up near the top of Mt Aarat itself, insisting that the arch is up there. They also would need to retool their literature and science on this, admitting that a non accredited and unprofessional nobody 7th Day Adventist accomplished what they failed in.
I've been generally supportive of ICR, but I beg to differ with them on this and some other science they are teaching their students. I have corresponded with them on this Wyatt stuff and their answers are usually short and non-substantive as to refuting the ark site.
DISCLAIMER: The above is not to say that I hold to all of Wyatt's claims regarding the site or his science. Having listened intently to both sides, attending a lecture by Wyatt on his expeditions with slides, having viewed David Fassold's video on the site which was a non-biased overview of the discovery et al, I have come to take the position that the site is not the ship itself, but an impression of the right dimensions and shape of the ark which has long since rotted into the terrain. Of course then there's those corroborating 13 or so boyancy ballast stones some of which have Biblical supportive inscriptions carved into them by local herdsmen inhabitants sometime in the past and the Biblical text which places the resting place in the hills of Aarat and not on the mountain itself.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Nighttrain, posted 02-10-2007 6:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 188 (384263)
02-10-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by CK
02-10-2007 5:50 PM


Re: Why Research?
CK writes:
Is that a serious question? Why would a Scientist waste their time on a non-existant boat from a flood that never happened?
1. Because their hypothesis is being challenged and debated widely.
2. Because it is alleged evidence relative to the Black Sea exploration mainline science has done.
3. Because it has to do with flood geology just as excavation of other ancient sites has to do with ancient history in determination of what happened in the past.
4. Because other Biblical claims which were once thought to be bogus have been found to be accurate, lending corroboration supportive (I say 'supportive') to Biblical historicity.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by CK, posted 02-10-2007 5:50 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by CK, posted 02-10-2007 6:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 50 of 188 (384265)
02-10-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
02-10-2007 6:10 PM


Re: Baumgardner/IRC/Wyatt
Let me get this straight, Buz. You say there`s a conspiracy among scientists to ignore the Ark/chariot wheels, AND a conspiracy by ICR to deny Wyatt his recognition rights?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2007 6:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2007 10:40 AM Nighttrain has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 51 of 188 (384266)
02-10-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
02-10-2007 6:23 PM


Re: Why Research?
quote:
1. Because their hypothesis is being challenged and debated widely.
Oh please - that's up there with "evolution is a theory in crisis" - nobody is debating this besides a few cranks and people like us on the internet. This is not a blip on the radar for the scientific community except for a few people on the fringes - Scientists have lots of real things to investigate...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2007 6:23 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 188 (384268)
02-10-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tusko
02-09-2007 5:44 AM


It certainly makes a case for a considerable flood in the region, and I'd be really interested in learning of any further evidence that would support or refute this theory. It certainly seems to lend support, though I can't say I've reviewed Wilson's work closely, or read any critiques of his approach.
This particular portion of the book cannot be attributed to Wilson as far as him getting out there in the field. It was actually Ryan and Pitman who advanced the theory.
Just as I think those who believe the bible without reviewing the physical evidence are on pretty shaky ground, I don't think that those who reject the Old Testament as history are justified in poo-pooing an event like the biblical flood out of hand, without reviewing the evidence. If all the evidence is in support, then you would be wise to either believe something or review it further -at least that's my opinion.
Yes, that's a very fair assessment you've made. I have a problem with extreme views where complete credulity or complete incredulity is based off of bias and where some people make knee jerk declarations from an emotional response.
There is a school of thought that says that every miracle in the bible can be explained in scientific terms.
This is one view that I have a problem with. I have a very unique position concerning how I view the Biblical view and the world view. I believe what the Bible says because I have no reason to doubt it. Its backed me up so many times in spiritual and physical matters that I know things without having an academic knowledge of it. I believe in a literal interpretation, however, what is literal in my eyes may be my own misinterpretation. For instance, the Flood. Moses makes allusions that the Deluge was global. Was it truly global or when he commented that it destroyed every living thing in the world, was he referring to the world he knew? I don't know. And for me personally, it doesn't really matter. I just find it to be an interesting conversation piece. My faith in God does not rely on whether or not the Flood was global or localized. It just doesn't matter to me and I doubt God is going to care much because He has bigger fish to fry in my life.
People even have a stab at explaining how Jesus could have walked on water given a very particular set of circumstances. Personally I don't subscribe to this approach. It seems far too willing to take the original sources at their literal word, just as modern 'biblicists' (I love that word).
I see two schools of thought battling over peanuts. On the one hand we have certain creationists that try to tie every thing into the Bible. And in my opinion, they even disparage the Bible by trying to use secular arguments. If God says that Noah brought two of every animal on board the Ark, then either believe it or don't. I don't think showing models how it was physically possible lends it any justice. If you believe in God, then certainly you can believe that God has the power to miracle those animals near the Ark. Don't try and use a secular argument because it just might backfire on you.
And of the second school of thought, they try to come up with reasons why Jesus must have been a magician who would use sleight of hand in order to manipulate people in to believing His deity. Or they fumble around trying to explain how Jesus was actually trying make self-fulfilling prophecies. But here's the fact: We'll either be proved right or prove wrong when we're dead. We aren't going to be judged on what we know through the measures of academic progress that is ultimately ephemeral. We're going to be judged on the things we know in our hearts to be true, but that we callously try to pretend doesn't exist.
I think this is dangerous because there might be a temptation to believe that there must have been a flood somewhere if its in the bible, when the plain truth is that we cannot begin to understand the writer's intentions. The flood could have been entirely metaphorical, or some other kind of big fib, after all.
Yes, that certainly is a possibility. I'm fairly certain that even Moses used quite a bit of metaphor in his testimony. Does 7 days really mean seven days? I don't know. I think it does, especially since he made a point to say, it was day, it was night. The second day. It was day, it was night. The third day etc. But could he have meant billions of years since units of time would likely be inconsequential to that which has no beginning or end? Sure, that's possible. Even Peter said that for the Lord, one day is as a thousand years. I think he is speaking metaphorically there, but that's just my interpretation.
That's why, in my opinion, you have to attempt to substantial any big claims with evidence.
I advanced this argument from almost an entirely scientific view. Its pretty much unquestionable that this Flood occured. I was just interested more in the motives of these schools of thought. And I wanted to see if bias was going to introduce itself. So far I've heard some very reasonable arguments.
Thanks for your participation.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tusko, posted 02-09-2007 5:44 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Tusko, posted 02-14-2007 9:15 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 53 of 188 (384345)
02-11-2007 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Archer Opteryx
02-10-2007 1:14 AM


Re: Uplift R Us
Whoa I always considered Taiwan a relatively flat island.
There are peaks over 12000 ft!!!! and a central mountain range.
Hey NJ any comments on mollusks on mountain tops?
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-10-2007 1:14 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-11-2007 8:54 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 59 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-11-2007 4:19 PM iceage has replied
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-14-2007 12:35 PM iceage has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 54 of 188 (384359)
02-11-2007 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by iceage
02-11-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Uplift R Us
iceage:
Whoa I always considered Taiwan a relatively flat island.
There are peaks over 12000 ft!!!! and a central mountain range.
Taiwan makes a powerful refutation of YEC Flood theories all by itself.
As you have noticed, the island is a mountain range--a spectacular one. But there was a time when all of it was ocean floor.
A crustal plate started sliding under another. Scientists place this event about 200 million years ago. As the bedrock of the lower plate slid into earth's crust, the layers of sediment on top of it collided with the layers of sediment on the other plate. The plates kept colliding and sliding, increasing pressure, increasing heat, increasing metamorphosis... and increasing height. The pileup breached the surface of the ocean. Today the mountain range is home to the highest peaks in Asia east of the Himalayas.
And the process continues. International teams of geologists are all over this island as we speak, monitoring its continuing rise from the ocean.
You can get a dramatic window on this story at Taroko National Park. Rivers have exposed huge expanses of rock in the mountainside. You can see layers and layers of stratified marble, twisted into S-shaped curves hundreds of meters high.
Everything you're looking at--the laying of the sediment, the formation of the limestone, the uplift, the metamorphosis into marble, the bending and twisting into S-curves, the erosion of it by rivers--takes a lot of time to accomplish.
And here's an interesting fact. We know that 6,000 years ago at the latest these mountains were inhabited by human beings.
Hey NJ any comments on mollusks on mountain tops?
It would be interesting to hear a YEC apologist comment on any of it. If the earth was as young as they say it is, this island shouldn't be here.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by iceage, posted 02-11-2007 12:10 AM iceage has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 188 (384371)
02-11-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Nighttrain
02-10-2007 6:32 PM


Re: Baumgardner/IRC/Wyatt
My statements were a forthright fair and balanced across the board/isle opinion that both Biblicalist creos and secular scientists were deeply entrenched into their own science regarding the discoveries of Wyatt, the nobody freelance researcher and expeditionist. Imo, their positions were pretty much equally agenda driven due to the upheavel such a change in their position would pose so far as what they had entrenched themselves into over many years. To find something better would mean scrapping a whole lot of literature and work they had invested great amounts on energy and expense into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Nighttrain, posted 02-10-2007 6:32 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 02-11-2007 11:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 60 by Nighttrain, posted 02-11-2007 6:57 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 188 (384372)
02-11-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
02-11-2007 10:40 AM


Wyatt made no discoveries.
My statements were a forthright fair and balanced across the board/isle opinion that both Biblicalist creos and secular scientists were deeply entrenched into their own science regarding the discoveries of Wyatt, the nobody freelance researcher and expeditionist.
Wyatt made no discoveries, he only falsified evidence to fool the gullible.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2007 10:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 188 (384373)
02-11-2007 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by anastasia
02-09-2007 2:21 PM


Exegesis
I am being humorous, and I promise not to post any more in this thread where honest scientific points are being made, but IMO there is nothing to date in the way of science that will make the Bible more likely to be true in its account of the Great Flood. All we have are basins filling and oceans spilling, where in the Bible, it clearly RAINED.
Well, yes, according to the Bible it clearly rained. But the Bible also said that torrents of water came from under the ground in huge springs or reservoirs.
"on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." -Genesis 7:11-12

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 2:21 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by anglagard, posted 02-11-2007 11:16 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


Message 58 of 188 (384378)
02-11-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 11:05 AM


Re: Exegesis
So I suppose these 'fountains of the deep' were overlain by solid rock of greater density. And therefore, in defiance of gravity, these fountains managed to flood the entire surface of the world.
Obviously, i am compelled to make "light things float and heavy things sink" a part of my signature.
Edited by anglagard, : the singnature!
Edited by anglagard, : overreaching

Light things float and heavy things sink - any unbiased kindergardner
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God -Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 11:05 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-12-2007 12:37 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-12-2007 12:37 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 59 of 188 (384450)
02-11-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by iceage
02-11-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Uplift R Us
Hey NJ any comments on mollusks on mountain tops?
NJ and Buz have each posted since you asked this, iceage. Still nothing about how those mollusks scaled mountains 12,000 feet high.
It might interest both of them to know that we do have fundamentalist Christian groups in Taiwan. Ardent strains. The phenomenon is mainly an export of the US revivalist subculture, of course, planted here by missionaries.
It's amazing how many things make the transition virtually unaltered. You hear groups singing the same hymns, asserting the same doctrines, making the same rationalizations. You see the same Jesus T-shirts and Polyglycoat hair styles. You see the same gestures: Bible thumping for the evangelicals, hand waving for the Pentecostals.
But here's the really interesting thing.
Ask one of the Bible thumpers how old the earth is and she'll tell you four billion years plus. Ask one of the hand wavers if he believes Darwin's theory of evolution is true and he'll say sure, of course it is. Young Earth Creationism does not survive the transition across the lake.
Elsewhere fundies say that to believe in evolution is to deny God. Here no one says that. The foreign missionaries who believe YEC keep it to themselves. They know they will lose credibility the instant they try to push it.
Interesting, yes?

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by iceage, posted 02-11-2007 12:10 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by iceage, posted 02-13-2007 2:15 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 60 of 188 (384481)
02-11-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
02-11-2007 10:40 AM


Re: Baumgardner/IRC/Wyatt
My statements were a forthright fair and balanced across the board/isle opinion that both Biblicalist creos and secular scientists were deeply entrenched into their own science regarding the discoveries of Wyatt, the nobody freelance researcher and expeditionist. Imo, their positions were pretty much equally agenda driven due to the upheavel such a change in their position would pose so far as what they had entrenched themselves into over many years. To find something better would mean scrapping a whole lot of literature and work they had invested great amounts on energy and expense into.
Is that a yes? Two conspiracies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2007 10:40 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2007 11:15 PM Nighttrain 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