|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for a recent flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Had the author intended for the Ordinal number to be used (first) he would have used the Hebrew word which means first. In English, does saying Day 1 and the first day change the context whatsoever? No, it doesn't. Therefore the point he is making is entirely moot and semantical. It's immaterial.
Now as to the definition of day which you question. God gives the definition of a day in Genesis 1:5. God called the light period day and He called the darkness night. He then combined the light period that had ended with the eveining in Genesis 1:2 and the dark period that ended with the light period of the morning as day one. He then declared the end of each light period with evening and the end of the dark period at morning as the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day and the seventh day. Day 2-7 ended with an evening the close of a light period and a morning the close of a dark period. Since that takes place with every rotation of the Earth it makes those days a 24 hour day or thereabouts. Precisely my point. He's describing literal days.
That first light period is something else though there is no limit to how long it lasted. Therefore the Earth is just as old as it is as it was created in the beginning. Even if one were to grant that the first day described in Genesis was a slight modification, nowehere in there does it describe the earth to millions or billions of years old. That's the contention. He was saying that Genesis describes the earth as being billions of years old. No such description exists anywhere in the bible. That's conjecture based on what we know NOW of the universe. In essence, it's a fabrication of his. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: But then you have no evidence for either the fountains of the deep or the rate that those supposed fountains of the deep flowed. But fountains of the deep exist today. Some on land and many many more under water. The water does rise 55 feet in six hours at the Bay of Fundy. Can you show me any text that states the rate of rain fall during the 40 days of rain?
jar writes: The Fountains of the Deep as some motive force is just plain silly. Since you can't refute that water came from the fountains of the deep you just deem it as plain silly.
jar writes: Again, look at the geography of the areas where the Biblical Flood supposedly happened. A single flat piece of dry land.
jar writes: There is simply lots of land area to accumulate rainfall, and it all flows downhill. There is a lot more land mass under water and the water does not flow downhill. It flows around, up and over the mountains. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is no evidence for the Fountains of the deep.
The Bay of Fundy is irrelevant. Gravity is still a constant, and water runs downhill. Water deposited by rainfall OR the imaginary Fountains of the Deep on existing seas will still get spread out uniformly. Water that falls on land from rainfall OR the imaginary Fountains of the Deep will still run downhill. The area is NOT a single flat piece of land. You have still not presented any evidence for either a worldwide or regional flood. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4451 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hello IMJ you crazy bastard,
You reading a European, Christian edition, which is hardly a credible source. and you are most likely reading a copy of the Masoretic text or one of the Septuagints. Let me know shich and I will tell you why they are hardly credible sources.
The actions of depicting the universe's age is not in days because DAY and WEEK were introduced in Genesis I refuted this here remember - Message 19I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4451 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Its an anomaly on manifold levels, including that its the first alphabetical book [a multi-page continueing narrative], no it isn't.
way ahead of its time even as of today. That is ridiculous even coming from you.
Genesis is astounding more so than if its scientifically correct [which it is!] - because it even thinks in the mode that it does It is not accurate. Your attempts to twist the text and shoe horn it into your innacurate idea of current scientific theory impresses noone.
where have we seen a description of the universe as finite, Great. I provided many exampes of earlier texts showing the same thing here Message 17. Who cares?
containing unaccountable and inumerable stars What the fuck are you talking about?
the introduction of the DAY I refuted this here Message 19 followed by the first listing of life form categories in their correct order and subsequent to a seed which acts as a directive program chip as the factor for reproduction? This is wrong also. I refuted it here - Message 18 You have 50 posts so far in this thread. And not one of them contains the information you have claimed to have. The closest you can come to the location of Mount Ararat is somewhere near Egypt, or Babylon, or maybe Canaan, somewhere near there. You have not supplied a year. You have not supplied the extent of the flood. We are all asking for you to interpret the text for us. You are the only one who seems to be able to interpret the text correctly. Display this ability. And try, try to stay somewhere close to the topic.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: I thought the rain and the flow from the fountains of the deep went on for only 40 days and 40 nights, and that it was another half year after that before the ark ran aground on Mount Ararat. We do tend to do a lot of thinking and then conclude our thinking right. But the only text we have that tells us anything about the flood of Noah says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the rain was stopped as was the fountains of the deep. After 150 days the water was abated and the ark rested in the area where the mountains of Ararat existed at the time of the writing of the text, that tells us of the flood of Noah.
Percy writes: During that half year when there was no longer constant rain nor flow from the fountains of the deep the ark could have drifted a considerable distance at the mercy of random currents and the prevailing winds. Yes that is very possible. But the story tells us the ark rested in the region where we find the mountains of Ararat today.
Percy writes: The ark could have ended up anywhere, so if you believe it ended up on Mount Ararat then that's as good a place as any. Yes, but I don't believe it ended up on Mount Ararat as that is not what the story says.
Percy writes: But the ark isn't the topic. The topic is evidence for a geologically very recent global flood. There is no such evidence available. There is none to be expected as the land mass was divided after the flood of Noah took place according to the text that tells of the story of the flood of Noah. There is evidence all over the world of the land mass being flooded and is what would be expected providing the flood of Noah took place prior to the division of the land mass to it's present configuration. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: Percy writes: But the ark isn't the topic. The topic is evidence for a geologically very recent global flood. There is no such evidence available. There is none to be expected as the land mass was divided after the flood of Noah took place according to the text that tells of the story of the flood of Noah. And yet you post anyway. Oh, wait, there was more:
There is evidence all over the world of the land mass being flooded and is what would be expected providing the flood of Noah took place prior to the division of the land mass to it's present configuration. First you say there's no evidence and none should be expected. Then you say there is evidence all over the world, but in order to interpret this evidence properly we have to assume the flood was followed by "division of the land mass to its present configuration." I'm not even going to try to untangle this. If you ever develop a coherent account of the evidence for a geologically recent flood then please let us know. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What is so funny about ICANT's Biblical Flood fable is that you MIGHT think that a recent splitting apart of some super continent just MIGHT leave a little evidence.
His scenario is even less plausible than some recent flood, and so far no one has presented any evidence to support even the flood fable.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wollysaurus Member (Idle past 4520 days) Posts: 52 From: US Joined: |
Just put on your "flood glasses" and all becomes clear. At least according to this guy. He goes out of his way to attempt to describe, in "geologic terms", evidence for the Flood. Well, at least he tries. His summary sounds very sciency (starting at around 57 minutes if you want to skip there) and concludes, of course, that there is "startling" evidence that a global flood occurred. The evidence is "overwhelming" in his eyes. After all, there is just *too much* evidence out there for scientists to accept. In my meager readings about the history of geology and archaeology, biblical mythology dominated the fields (or their predecessors) for a long time, until finally it just became apparent that the Bible is no history book, and searching for the boundary between the antediluvian world and our own was a pointless exercise.
And a repteating pattern here: the speaker says there is all kinds of "evidence" but then simply goes on to describe a "mechanism" without actually citing evidence that this really occurred at any point. His is particularly funny... The magnetic field collapsed, allowing... Stuff... Yeah. Yeah. No actual evidence is cited outside of half-formed hypothesis. Here is the problem in relying on bronze age texts, themselves probably heavily affected by cultural diffusion via the Babylonian exile among other Semitic influences, as your guide to the world around you. There was no global flood. Physical evidence for such would likely dominate the study of geology, not to mention be fundamental in our understanding of human civilization (leaving out physical difficulties with flooding the world). Was there a local or regional flood at the root of these myths? I think that is likely (particularly if you consider the possibility of the exiled Hebrews picking up the story from their Babylonian captors, with local myths reaching back into older civilizations still) however we still can't really answer the two most important questions: where and when? And, to toss another iron on the fire, if there *had* been a global flood (purely for the sake of conversation), how would this in any way validate the Judaeo Christian mythology over, say, Ovid's account in _Metamorphosis_?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
But fountains of the deep exist today. Some on land and many many more under water.
And at what rate do they emit water?
The water does rise 55 feet in six hours at the Bay of Fundy.
Are you serious? It does so by taking water from somewhere else...
Can you show me any text that states the rate of rain fall during the 40 days of rain?
Of course not. You are the one who says it actually happened. So what was the rate?
Since you can't refute that water came from the fountains of the deep you just deem it as plain silly.
Since there is no evidence for such fountains, it seems silly to say that there was such a thing. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Minutes and seconds were not yet in the human mindset.
Well, in case you hadn't noticed, they are now. How about joining us in the present?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Do you realise that makes the description even more accurate, because it seems to know there was not one lone mountain but a series?
Well, maybe more accurate, but certainly less precise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
kNOCK-KNOCK!
This is what you should better attend to:
quote: Does Mr. Admin/Monitor Esq even understand I have three times provided 'MAP' pointers of Noah's location from the text itself, with no personal input or improvisation? Do you? Did you even read the part in my posts quoting verse references that Noah's arc landed in the Ararat mountains, and that the surrounding countires are Ninveh, Egypt, Canaan and Babylon. Would you like me to draw those countries in a map with longtitude and latitude to satisfy jokers and clowns - would it help? Then there's this beauty:
quote: Are the above map names NOT factual historical and geographical stats? Please enlighten since you decided to assist with your brilliant input. There's more:
quote: Not true. There is cross-nation independent reporting of this flood, which I already posted, with none responding to it.
quote: I already responded to this: this is listed by scholars as a bogus document, which date is post Hebrew, and asked the poster why he never saw this or even ask why we have no draduated imprints if this writing was 8,500 years old. Do the monitor have any response maybe? Shall I go on - or will you now enlighten us why you asked my not to post in that science thread because I claimed the universe is finite? Let me know if you care to have a bout with me in science knowledge too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Here's what you should be responding to:
quote: I should apologise that a 3000 year text does not contain minutes and seconds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Pls show us, compared to which other writings is it maybe more accurate but less precise? How should it be shown to be more precise - you forgot to say?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024