|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 859 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: A more correct reading is that Genesis 1 assumes that the initial state of the cosmos was an ocean. This is the case with other Middle Eastern creation myths. It is not, strictly speaking a flood because - as Genesis states - there was no land to flood.
quote: Since it is not a fact - and since land is the major - perhaps only - source of sediment. This does not seem likely.
quote: The flood story does not imply a terrarium atmosphere. A global flood is unlikely to raise mountains (although it might reduce their height somewhat by erosion in the early stages). Nor is it likely to lower valleys, let alone the ocean floor. Ballard's discoveries have been discussed here and relate to the failure of a natural dam. Morevoer it has since been shown that the flooding of the Black Sea was slower than was originally suggested, so that even the idea that the flood story is a greatly exaggerated version of the Black Sea flood has been abandoned.
quote: You know perfectly well that this is not true. You have been asked to support it more than once and every time you have run away. Not once have you given even one reason to believe it.
quote: Again this makes no sense. And there are no "frozen tropical animals" in the ice of Siberia to need explaining.
quote: This hypothesis fails to account for the evidence that snakes are not closely related to dinosaurs. And it was refuted by the fossil evidence which proves that snakes co-existed with the dinosaurs (unlike humans).
quote: Lava flows which formed underwater are recognisable as such. And there is no obvious connection between a flood and the release of lava. Other than that it can be noted that you did not offer a valid refutation of even one of Anglagard's points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I notice that your quotes miss out any reference to the Bible. If the Bible REALLY implied the existence of the mythical "vapour canopy" then that would not be the case. THe page tat you quote is trying to harmonise a "literal" reading of Genesis with an erroneous view of science.
The "waters above the firmament" are not described as vapour, nor is there any reason to assume that this is what the author of Genesis meant. Genesis 2:6 is part of a creation account and does not claim that this state lasted until the Flood. If the author of Genesis meant to sat that this situation persisted to the time of the Flood, then why is it not explicitly stated ? Likewise, the rainbow is said to be a miracle, not something which occurred naturally as a consequence of a "change" in "weather systems". And we must ask, what does the "vapour canopy: have to do with the absence of rain ? Surely the presence of more water vapour in the atmosphere would be unlikely to prevent rain. The alleged evidence of a "greenhouse effect" caused by the vapour canopy is equally lacking. The alleged "ninety-foot plum tree" is an error (obviously the author is relying on creationists rather than scientific sources). And the alleged benefits of hyperbaric chambers are still controversial. (It is also worth noting that there is no attempt to estimate the extra pressure resulting from the alleged canopy). The section on dinosaurs is also inaccurate. For a start it is quite likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. And certainly there were predators among them. It is a stretch to say that the prohibition on meat-eating (itself inferred) applied to any species but humans (and according to Genesis even humans sacrificed animals). There is an interesting question here. Why would someone who genuinely revered the Bible create an error by insisting on a strained reading ? Surely putting a falsehood in God's mouth is blasphemous to any Christian. The claim about brontosaurus is in error (the real story is that the same species was named twice and that the late name - brontosaurus - was dropped when it was realised). The species certainly did exist, but the rules require that the official name is "apatosaurus". There was a mistake about the head, but it has nothing to do with the identification of the species - merely the creation of a display specimen. (See here Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote:That's no use, you're meant to make your case in your own words - and use links for support. When even the quotes from the link are useless, you're doing it wrong. quote: Yet that is not said in the Bible it is described as water, meaning the liquid, not vapour.
quote: But I am not assuming a major change in the atmosphere. Nor do I accept your assertion that the Flood indicates such a change. And you have not explained why the alleged vapour canopy should prevent rain.
quote:The text also says that no plants were growing. If you take that as applying to the whole world you contradict Genesis 1:11-12. And in the flood story there is no suggestion that rain is new - Genesis 7:4 is written as if Noah should know what rain was. quote: Or different laws of physics. Or it implies that the story is a myth. Given that even this mist should diffract light it seems unlikely that it was the atmosphere.
quote: Apparently the benefits for many conditions are under question. If you check Wikipedia that is explciitly stated. The list of conditions it is established for is quite limited. There are also potential problems.
quote:The oxygen content is independant of the pressure. And the alleged vapour canopy only contributes pressure. quote: Then please provide some evidence from a reliable source that this "ninety-foot plum tree" really was found. But here's what Ed Babinski found when he investigated it And what else should I do to substantiate my assertion that the article does not estimate the pressure ? Surely it is up to you to refute it - if it is not true.
quote: As I've seen there's no record of prophetic success - it's easier to find failures. Real archaeologists have abandoned the idea of the Exodus. It would take blind faith to believe your "corroboration".
quote: But it does mean that any argument that relies on assuming that dinosaurs were cold-blooded is in trouble. Probably false premises do not make a convincing argument.
quote: I didn't say that it did. (But the animals are still killed and cooked).However there is no verse which says that animals were forbidden to eat meat until the flood (and if there was it would be wrong). quote: Then you have to present it. You haven't even dealt with all the points I raised. Most significantly it does not support your assertion that there were "tropical animals" found frozen in Siberia - although it certainly does talk about frozen animals in Siberia. Nor does it support your contention that the Flood would affect dating. It only refers to an idea that the "vapour canopy" - if it existed - might affect carbon dating, but that idea is known to be false. As you should know from discussions here. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If you're assuming your conclusion you ARE wasting your time. The point is that your "criticism" of my argument completely missed the mark - BECAUSE I don't assume a major change in the atmosphere - and because the Bible does not mention one or imply one, either.
quote: You neglected to provide any significant support for your points. In fact a good number of your points had already been refuted in previous discussions.
quote: Repeating unsupported assertions is certainly not going to change my mind. Nor is repeating assertions that have already been shown to be false.
quote: Only because you DO run away - instead of supporting your assertions. If you don't have time for honest discussion this is not the site for you. You are expected to support your points or withdraw them. You are not expected to keep repeating them and refuse time and time again to support them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
To handle some bits that others haven't covered.
1) depends on the amount of water . 2) Unless the "vapour" was VERY high (implausably so) the pressure on the Earth is not likely to change much. It'll weigh about the same and the pressure on the Earth itself will therefore be about the same whether it's vapour in the air or liquid on the surface. 3)a) Lowell's findings (abstract) are no use to you until integrated into a YEC view. The YEC view greatly compresses the Pleistocene - and the carbon dates used by Lowell. Lowell's results only cover the most recent period of glaciation, leaving the others to be accounted for. There is no clear link to any "vapour canopy" b) The presence of larger-than-expected quantities of hydroxyl also needs more examination. Without an understanding of the reasons why the amounts were unexpected we certainly cannot assume that the "vapour canopy" is the solution.Fortunately the complete article is online And surprise, surprise your creationist source misrepresents it. It does NOT claim that there is excess hydroxyl in the atmosphere. It claims that there are "patches" of water appearing in the atmosphere, and these lose some of their substance as a trail of hydroxyl radicals. That hardly supports the "vapour canopy". c) If there is a connection between increased oxygen content and the "vapour canopy" it has not been produced. Higher pressure does not increase the oxygen content of air. So, as it stands, not one of your examples actually supports the "vapour canopy". All you have is the assertions of a source that has been proven to be unreliable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
A little bit of advice:
1) Don't rely on other peoples arguments if you can't understand them. 2) Creationist sources are frequently unreliable. 3) Learn to vet your sources. You can find all sorts of rubbish on the web. Try to pick out reliable sources. If there aren't good reasons to assume that it is reliable check out its claims elsewhere - including looking for important references (If the page makes that more difficult than it should be, by say omitting the titles of articles it cites be wary).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It certainly seems to be a matter of "ideology preference" to you. However I proved that the page you quoted was unreliable - as a matter of objective fact. If you had followed my advice and done the sort of checking I did you would have discovered that. I didn't choose that page - you did. You might ask yourself why, if my opinion does not have a basis in fact - it turned out to be right.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024