Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 7:59 AM
31 online now:
caffeine, Hyroglyphx, Jon, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   Noahs Flood
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 91 of 100 (562729)
06-01-2010 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Flyer75
06-01-2010 2:13 AM


Re: Picking and choosing
quote:

So are you saying, it's a shut and locked case coyote? In every case? There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets?

No, there's no definite problem with comets. Just the possibility that there might be a problem.

quote:

At the very least, there is still debate on these issues.

Not in science there isn't. All you have is religious apologists trying to force the evidence to fit their dogma. And talking of apologists weren't you going to start a thread presenting Josh McDowell's "evidence" ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 92 of 100 (562739)
06-01-2010 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
Hi Flyer,

I know your post has already received three replies, but one point you made deserves more detailed treatment:

Flyer75 writes:

For a second I'll digress; haven't many scientists begin to take a position (s) that yes indeed, catastrophic events did take place, more so then what was originally thought years ago, and that is what can explain many geological structures/strata that we see today.

You're talking about uniformitarianism, and it doesn't mean what you think it does. The concept was introduced by Charles Lyell in the first half of the 19th century, and it means that the same forces and processes at work in the world today were also at work throughout the entire history of the Earth. In addition to slow processes like deposition and erosion, Lyell's famous book, Principles of Geology (Darwin took it with him on the Beagle), included earthquakes, volcanoes and floods. Today we also include processes of which Lyell was unaware, such as glaciers and asteroid and comet impacts.

The term uniformitarianism fell into disuse within geology long ago, probably because it is so easy to misinterpret as excluding the possibility of sudden change. But that's not what it means. Uniformitarianism refers to the array of forces at work, not the rate of change.

So no, scientists are not changing their views about the forces that might have been at work changing our planet in the past. They still think that erosion, deposition, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, glaciers and impacts are what shapes our planet. And...

Whether one believes a Genesis Noah flood is not the issue in this, just the fact that something big did occur??

Things that actually happened leave evidence behind, and looking back four or five thousand years, there is no evidence of "something big" happening.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:42 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 100 (562762)
06-01-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Flyer75
06-01-2010 2:13 AM


Re: Picking and choosing
The data lead to one interpretation, and that is an old earth.

To make the data fit into a young earth interpretation you have to ignore the overwhelming majority of it, and then twist and misrepresent the rest.

This "we have our own interpretation" stuff that creationists come up with is nonsense. They are lying to themselves to try to prop up their religious beliefs.

So are you saying, it's a shut and locked case coyote? In every case? There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets? At the very least, there is still debate on these issues.


No, in regards to an old earth there is no debate.

There are only creationists who refuse to accept the scientific evidence because of religious beliefs.

In science, the debate was ended over 200 years ago. All that is being done now is working out the precise details.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 94 of 100 (562770)
06-01-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 10:38 AM


I guess I'd like to address those here who appear to "believe" that the flood did occur, but that it was not global.

Catholics fit...

I would like to address the issue for those Christians here who do not believe it was a global flood. Why?

Because the entire planet has not been covered in water since the dawn of mankind. Case closed. The Flood could not have been global.

A clear reading of Genesis and the NT apostle Paul all indicate that this was a global flood.

If it just had to have been a global flood, then the Bible is wrong.

But its not necessarily global. The intended audience of Genesis did not have the concept of the whole planet like we do so their understanding would be quite different. When they talked about the earth they were not talking about the planet in its entirety. The story could have been talking about a local flood. Similiarly, there's arguments on the wiping out of mankind not being every single person on the planet, but a local group of men instead.

As far as the New Testament referencing the Flood... A reference is not necessarily a claim of actualness. For example, if I wrote a letter to some fellow nerds that reference the Prime Directive from Star Trek they would all understand my point. Now, that doesn't mean that any one of us actually thinks that Star Trek was real. Similiarly, even if it was something that our culture considered real (or didn't know), say something like Paul Revere's Ride, our mention of it as if it were a real thing doesn't necessitate that it really did happen.

So like when Jesus said that just like Jonah was in the whale for 3 days...yada yada, that doesn't necessarily mean that a man really lived in a big fish for 3 days. He could have been reference a known fiction, or referenceing something his audience considered real all the while not endorsing it as actually happening.

Make sense?

Just one small point I'll make and I'll address your other evidences to this as you post them: If, as Genesis states, God gave Noah 120 years to prepare a monstrous "boat" for this event, did Noah waste is time doing so??? Wouldn't the average man of any sort of intelligence just gathered his belongings and walked away, like to Asia or somewhere, instead of building a boat to float around on during a localized flood????

The story of Noah borrows a lot from the earlier surrounding cultures. It has been heavily influenced. Are you familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh? I don't think what we have for Noah's story is exactly the way things went down. It might not have happened at all. But assuming it did happen, I doubt the specifics are accurate. There's no way he had 2 of every single kind of animal on a boat... Maybe some guy did make a boat for a flood and put a bunch of different animals on it. As the story got passed down, it must have gotten embelished.

If you care to read about the Catholic's take on it, here's a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the Deluge:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 10:38 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 100 (562787)
06-01-2010 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Flyer75
06-01-2010 2:13 AM


Comets
So are you saying, it's a shut and locked case coyote? In every case? There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets?

You have not said how "comets" are "problems" with "millions of years".

Please do so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5393
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 96 of 100 (562799)
06-01-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Flyer75
06-01-2010 2:13 AM


Re: Picking and choosing
There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets?

It was awfully amusing about a decade ago to watch Answers in Genesis evolve from their position of "there is no Kuiper Belt of comets!!1!" through "well, there aren't but a few of them!1!!" to silence on the subject.

There's an Oort Cloud out there, Flyer. The Kuiper Belt had no known members 20 years ago, and now over a thousand are cataloged. It's just difficult to see things that are darker than coal and several billion miles away.

So no, there is no "problem" with comets.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 3:35 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
glowby
Member
Posts: 60
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 97 of 100 (562810)
06-01-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
Flyer writes:

This is just not a factually true statement. IF the sciences all proved that the earth was millions of years old, there probably would not be the amount of discourse and discussion going on that we have right now.

Seriously, ALL those sciences have proved an old earth...long ago. The amazing technologies they have produced utterly and absolutely rely on it, and would not work without it. The amount of discourse here depends entirely on Biblical literalists who can't/won't/mayn't admit that a young earth is impossible. Fanatical religious views always tend to clash with reality

Flyer writes:

There are ways to interpret the evidence that can fit into both sides.

For reliable answers and the best estimation of the nature of the material world, only interpretation by the scientific method has proved useful. For an understanding of the spiritual world, no evidence is needed - only faith is required - so I don't see why you bother with evidence, except to prey upon people of faith AND ignorance.

Flyer writes:

You invoked astronomy, probably which is the least known of the sciences still at this point. Watch any science show on the planets or solar systems and you'll hear terminology such as "might have", "could have", "possibly", ect...

The shuttle couldn't launch with a young earth built into the calculations. Almost any discussion among scientists will necessarily involve qualifying terms like those you mentioned. Not being satisfied with the knowledge they've already achieved, or that Goddidit, they theorize answers to new questions. This process begins with might haves, could haves, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:36 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
glowby
Member
Posts: 60
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 98 of 100 (562812)
06-01-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Iblis
05-31-2010 11:40 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
Iblis writes:

I'm not giving you crap, not only is it not my job but you did manage to mention the Flud thingie. But you may get more mileage out of your question in Bible Buffet (Run-off From Noah's Flood). I'm going to stick close here to the part that is at least vaguely relevant.

You're right, it was quite off topic. I'll try watch out better. The quote I quoted rather inspired me...

Iblis writes:

Does it really make any difference, to the message, ...?...?...navy drinking song...?...Jedi Knights...?...just a plastic toy?

I'd love to reply, but I'm afraid it would be a bit off topic...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Iblis, posted 05-31-2010 11:40 PM Iblis has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 100 (562830)
06-02-2010 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Coragyps
06-01-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
It was awfully amusing about a decade ago to watch Answers in Genesis evolve from their position of "there is no Kuiper Belt of comets!!1!" through "well, there aren't but a few of them!1!!" to silence on the subject.

There's an Oort Cloud out there, Flyer. The Kuiper Belt had no known members 20 years ago, and now over a thousand are cataloged. It's just difficult to see things that are darker than coal and several billion miles away.

So no, there is no "problem" with comets.

Oh, don't spoil it for me. I really wanted him to say what he thought the "problem" was, and now you've scared him off.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Coragyps, posted 06-01-2010 8:44 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 06-02-2010 7:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 100 of 100 (562854)
06-02-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 3:35 AM


Re: Picking and choosing
Dr Adequate writes:

Oh, don't spoil it for me. I really wanted him to say what he thought the "problem" was, and now you've scared him off.

Exactly! I want to hear him say what those "might haves" and "could haves" in TV programs on astronomy were actually about. Should we presume they were saying things like this:

  • "The Earth might orbit the Sun in a year."
  • "Venus' orbit might lie inside the Earth's."
  • "The Sun could have a greater mass than Jupiter."
  • "The universe might have begun with the Big Bang."
  • "Andromeda could be around 140,000 light years in diameter."
  • "In the early universe light might have traveled at the speed of light."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 3:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019