Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
62 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
jar
Member
Posts: 33497
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 16 of 242 (788453)
07-31-2016 9:01 PM


More evidence that the Biblical flood did not cause much erosion
There is yet another piece of information we can get from the flood stories and that is in general almost none of the loose soil was washed away and somehow sea water did not rise up to cover the lands. That is another factor found in the stories, Noah planted a vineyard. Now grapes unlike olives have deep root systems often going down ten feet or more. Like the olive though they will not grow in soggy or water logged soil, or soil lacking nutrients or extremely acidic or alkaline soil.

This tells us that both the depth of the soil and the makeup of the soil remained pretty constant and that the soil definitely did not spend a year under water or get flooded by seawater or salts washed down from higher levels.

It seems the flood described in the Bible stories was far more like the annual Nile delta or Amazon basin flooding.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin don ----> down


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 10:09 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 242 (788458)
07-31-2016 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
07-31-2016 7:46 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Yes one wouldn't normally expect any tree to survive the Flood as this one apparently did. But that's why I said what I said about its likely greater health compared to today's trees. No it was not BOTH pre and post Flood, it had grown in the pre-Flood period and would have had all the attributes given it from that period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 7:46 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 9:55 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33497
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 18 of 242 (788459)
07-31-2016 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
07-31-2016 9:48 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Faith writes:

Yes one wouldn't normally expect any tree to survive the Flood as this one apparently did. But that's why I said what I said about its likely greater health compared to today's trees. No it was not BOTH pre and post Flood, it had grown in the pre-Flood period and would have had all the attributes given it from that period.

Come on Faith. Of course it was both pre and post flood. The flood only lasted a year and the tree was old enough to be bearing leaves so it had to been alive before and after the flood.

And again there is no evidence of any pre-flood attributes.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 9:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 9:59 PM jar has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 242 (788460)
07-31-2016 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by 14174dm
07-31-2016 8:02 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
The research by the Institute for Creation Research shows that no soil would be left on the continents by the Flood. Any antediluvian trees would have been ripped from the ground and left to float for a year. When the Flood receded, no soil would have been left on the continents for anything to sprout in.

One unsupported assertion after another. Well, that's all such a discussion as this could ever be.

Something allowed this olive tree to survive, perhaps its location high in the Ararat mountains as well as its health advantage from its pre-Flood environment. SOME soil may have been left, nobody can ever say anything with such finality about an event in the prehistoric past, all anybody is doing on both sides of the question is guessing. I'm not willing to entertain any idea that contradicts the Biblical account, and I have no reason to do that either, there are always possibilities that those hostile to the Bible aren't going to think of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by 14174dm, posted 07-31-2016 8:02 PM 14174dm has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by 14174dm, posted 08-01-2016 9:42 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 37 by saab93f, posted 08-01-2016 1:36 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 242 (788462)
07-31-2016 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
07-31-2016 9:55 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Merely "being alive" after the Flood does not make it a product of the post-Flood world. It grew and was nourished in the different environment of the world before the Flood. It had vitality to spare. Come on yourself.

"There is no evidence" of anything anyone has said on this thread if you're going to talk about evidence. We're trading plausibilities, which is all one can do with this sort of issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 9:55 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 10:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 242 (788463)
07-31-2016 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
07-31-2016 9:01 PM


Re: More evidence that the Biblical flood did not cause much erosion
There is yet another piece of information we can get from the flood stories and that is in general almost none of the loose soil was washed away and somehow sea water did not rise up to cover the lands. That is another factor found in the stories, Noah planted a vineyard. Now grapes unlike olives have deep root systems often going down ten feet or more. Like the olive though they will not grow in soggy or water logged soil, or soil lacking nutrients or extremely acidic or alkaline soil.

All they need is good drainage and they do need a lot of moisture, and there is no reason why they wouldn't have had both. It takes three years for a grapevine to produce grapes too, so it had plenty of time for the soil to dry, if that would have helped, and I don't see any reason to assume it would. That's by uniformitarian principles but in this case those are in accordance with the nature of the plant itself rather than its hardiness.

As for salty water the usual understanding is that the oceans weren't nearly as salty then as they are now, and besides, the Flood had the input of the "windows of heaven" as well as the "fountains of the deep," which wouldn't have been salty.

This tells us that both the depth of the soil and the makeup of the soil remained pretty constant and that the soil definitely did not spend a year under water or get flooded by seawater or salts washed don from higher levels.

It seems the flood described in the Bible stories was far more like the annual Nile delta or Amazon basin flooding.

As I said and you quoted, the silliest thing is when people hostile to the idea of the Flood try to imagine what it would have been like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 9:01 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33497
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 22 of 242 (788464)
07-31-2016 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
07-31-2016 9:59 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Actually no, we are NOT trading plausibility.

The story says the tree was alive after the flood.

That means the tree was alive before the flood.

Thems the facts of the story.

There is nothing in the story of any different environment before the flood and there is absolute and overwhelming evidence from the real world that the environment before the supposed flood was very much the same as the environment after the supposed flood.

Those are facts.

The depth and style of root systems for olive trees and grape vines is not supposition but again a matter of fact.

That neither olive trees nor grape vines will live in water logged soil is not speculation but fact.

The story claims Noah plated a vineyard so there had to be fertile soil that was not contaminated by sea water and had good drainage and was not washed away by the receding flood if the story is to be believed.

There is much we can say about the conditions and consequences of either of the Biblical Flood stories; it is not at all hard to know what the conditions had to be like.

Abe:

Faith writes:

As for salty water the usual understanding is that the oceans weren't nearly as salty then as they are now, and besides, the Flood had the input of the "windows of heaven" as well as the "fountains of the deep," which wouldn't have been salty.

And what is the evidence that supports the water from the windows of heaven or the fountain of the deep would not be salty?

Edited by jar, : see AbE:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 9:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 3:58 AM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 23 of 242 (788469)
07-31-2016 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
07-31-2016 7:26 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
OK, thanks, but at an archaeological site aren't you seeing fairly recent layers that would have been built on top of the geo column? That is, assuming the Flood of course, the paleosols would all be post-Flood where you are working.

abe Or, so as not to stretch your credulity too much, in very recent time as compared to the time periods assigned in the Geo Timescale?

Biblical scholars place the global flood about 4,250 years ago, and that is a time period which I have seen in maybe up to 100 archaeological sites.

I see continuity from much earlier up to historic times with no breaks which could be attributed to a flood. I see continuity in mtDNA, cultural patterns, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. Nowhere in the 8-10,000 years that I routinely deal with is there evidence of a flood.

So, either the biblical scholars are wrong or the bible is wrong.

The geological column has nothing to do with any of this--the flood is either in historic times (somewhere around 4,250 years ago) or it didn't happen at all. In this recent time period we are dealing with soils, not rocks. The only reason creationists try to place the flood at an earlier date, and attempt to deal with early geology, is they have given up trying to show a global flood at the appointed time of about 4,250 years ago.

All the evidence shows that the global flood didn't happen and all the belief in the world can't change that.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 7:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 9:37 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 242 (788472)
08-01-2016 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
07-31-2016 10:11 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
And what is the evidence that supports the water from the windows of heaven or the fountain of the deep would not be salty?

Ocean water is salty because water that flows into the ocean contains minerals leached from rocks by rivers and streams that flow into the ocean. If there were water above the earth that had never flowed across the landscape, why would we expect that water to be salty?

In any event, both sources of water are made up out of whole cloth. Is it really reasonable to inquire into whether or not imaginary sources of water might contain dissolved minerals?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 10:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 8:51 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 9:21 AM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33497
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 25 of 242 (788481)
08-01-2016 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
08-01-2016 3:58 AM


and yet another thing we should see.
NoNukes writes:

Is it really reasonable to inquire into whether or not imaginary sources of water might contain dissolved minerals?

As long as it is understood that we are discussing imaginary water then it can be a pure as anyone wants.

But if we are asserting that it is real water not imaginary water then it's worth considering what the reality shows.

There are lots of examples here on Earth of "Waters of the Deep" ranging from gentle springs to geysers to the true fountains of the deep, the hydrothermal vents. One characteristic of many such fountains of the deep is that the water is far from pure but instead filled with dissolved minerals. In fact we have developed whole industries showing folk around the deposits from waters of the deep, mining sulfur from the areas, bottling and selling it as "Mineral Water" and creating spas where people can come and soak in the waters.

When we look at the waters found in the heavens we also find that it is not just water but has many of the fairly complex chemical signatures we associate with the building blocks of life. In fact the composition of heavenly waters is different enough to allow scientists to determine if water is from a cometary source I understand. Even more interesting is the evidence that not all comet water is the same but many differ from what is found on the Earth while other match what is found on Earth.

As I pointed out back in Message 1 the water falling as rain came from the oceans and so there is a net zero there. Certainly localized flooding as the rain ran downhill would be common but the stories describe the whole world remaining inundated (with of course no explanation of where the excess water goes) for a full year. That means some additional amount of water had to be added.

So if a claim is made that the source of the extra water needed for a Biblical flood story is true then I think it is reasonable to question the content and makeup of that miracle water based on the reality of similar water found today.

BUT, it also adds one more thing we would have to see. Since the rain came from the sea and then ran back to the sea the post flood sea level should be the same as it was a year earlier. However if we add all the additional water from the "Fountains of the Deep" and the "Windows of Heaven" that excess water had no place to go except into the ocean. That should leave a very easy to spot one year sea rise equal to all the waters that covered all the land reaching high up into the mountains, a sea rise equal to what was seen after ice ages but happening in just one year not over centuries.

Since the Biblical Flood is supposed to have happened just about halfway between today and the last major ice age that telltale signature sea rise should be easy to find.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 3:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 11:59 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 242 (788482)
08-01-2016 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
08-01-2016 3:58 AM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
How can a person call himself a Christian who denies the plain words of scripture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 3:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2016 6:37 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 242 (788485)
08-01-2016 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
07-31-2016 11:19 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
You don't get to win a debate about the Flood by simply declaring your prejudice that the Flood didn't happen.

Biblical scholars place the global flood about 4,250 years ago, and that is a time period which I have seen in maybe up to 100 archaeological sites.

According to human science. Sorry, science does not trump the Bible. You are looking at a made-up time period, not the time of the Flood or the evidence for the FLood.

I see continuity from much earlier up to historic times with no breaks which could be attributed to a flood.

The very idea that there should be breaks is a false human concept. The likely reality is that you are either working ON or IN the Flood deposits and not recognizing them for what they are.

I see continuity in mtDNA, cultural patterns, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. Nowhere in the 8-10,000 years that I routinely deal with is there evidence of a flood.

That's because you've been trained out of seeing the evidence for it and habitually think in terms that aggressively exclude the Biblical information. Your idea that you are looking in a period of eight to ten thousand years is also just human invention.

So, either the biblical scholars are wrong or the bible is wrong.

More likely the science of dating is wrong along with a few other things that make you blind to the evidence for the Flood.

The geological column has nothing to do with any of this--the flood is either in historic times (somewhere around 4,250 years ago) or it didn't happen at all. In this recent time period we are dealing with soils, not rocks. The only reason creationists try to place the flood at an earlier date, and attempt to deal with early geology, is they have given up trying to show a global flood at the appointed time of about 4,250 years ago.

I see no need to prove the timing, the important thing is that the geological column IS the evidence of the Flood, the whole shebang.

All the evidence shows that the global flood didn't happen and all the belief in the world can't change that.

The evidence has been shown over and over and over here. Unfortunately all the evidence in the world can't change an ingrained prejudice against it, especially one that bears the imprimatur of Science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The Bible isn't a "religious belief," it's a revelation of true historical facts, some of which do in fact convey scientific knowledge.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2016 11:19 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 11:10 AM Faith has responded
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 12:03 PM Faith has responded
 Message 47 by Boof, posted 08-02-2016 12:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 174 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 28 of 242 (788486)
08-01-2016 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
07-31-2016 9:55 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
You claim creationism is scientific so I went to a creation science organization. So if their product is an unsupported assertion, where is the science in creation science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 9:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33497
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 29 of 242 (788497)
08-01-2016 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
08-01-2016 9:37 AM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Faith writes:

I see no need to prove the timing, the important thing is that the geological column IS the evidence of the Flood, the whole shebang.

If you are asserting that as anything more than a personal belief then you must provide the model, method, process, mechanism, procedure or thingamabob for your claimed flood that can produce what is actually seen in reality; and so far no one has ever been able to do that.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 9:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:03 PM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 242 (788501)
08-01-2016 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
08-01-2016 8:51 AM


Re: and yet another thing we should see.
When we look at the waters found in the heavens we also find that it is not just water but has many of the fairly complex chemical signatures we associate with the building blocks of life. In fact the composition of heavenly waters is different enough to allow scientists to determine if water is from a cometary source I understand.

The analysis of water from comets looks at the isotopes of oxygen because the ratios of isotopes other than O-16 is different in the water. That has nothing to do with salts. And those chemicals that constitute the building blocks of life, namely carbon compounds are generally covalent molecules and not the minerals that constitute salts. Yeah, there might be minerals in comet water but the stuff you are discussing does not get address that issue.

Beyond that, the canopy of water that is described in Genesis is something different entirely. That water came from who knows where.

So if a claim is made that the source of the extra water needed for a Biblical flood story is true then I think it is reasonable to question the content and makeup of that miracle water based on the reality of similar water found today.

Actually, in the case of water from the windows of heavens, it probably is not reasonable to expect it to be just like ocean water, or to conform to the origin of the solar system as understood by science, because if the Bible is correct, all of that other stuff is irrelevant and wrong.

Waters from the fountains of the deep is another question entirely. You'll note that I don't ask about that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 8:51 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021