Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
109 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 108 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,979 Year: 5,091/6,534 Month: 511/794 Week: 2/135 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 46 of 242 (788536)
08-01-2016 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
08-01-2016 12:04 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
It amounts to no more than saying "my dates are right, and yours are wrong." It's not an argument, it's an assertion.

You are incorrect. You have no way to assign a date to any soil sediments, pre or post flood. Absolutely none. What you do instead is deny that the dating Coyote uses is correct regardless of how much evidence supports those dates. So it is an evidenced argument against your denial.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 33 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:04 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 1736 days)
Posts: 97
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 47 of 242 (788544)
08-02-2016 12:21 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.

"The geological column" appears to be a fiction concocted by creationists, so I'm not sure how it can provide evidence of anything.

Edited by Boof, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 9:37 AM Faith has taken no action

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 48 of 242 (788547)
08-02-2016 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
08-01-2016 5:18 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
I don't think you read what I said about the wet soil. If you did you didn't think about it.

I read through all your posts and at first you proposed magical paleosoils and after that you said that soil had three years to dry to produce grapes. Nothing I could decipher as meaning that the soil was okay for olive tree to grow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 5:18 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 8:48 AM saab93f has seen this message

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 49 of 242 (788554)
08-02-2016 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by saab93f
08-02-2016 2:23 AM


On grapes and olives.
The point about the grapes and olives was far more than just how wet the soil might be. As I said back in Message 16:

quote:
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 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.


The point is that there must have been at least ten feet of soil still present and present at a location that was "among the mountains". Grapes need deep soils , neither too acidic or alkaline and not damp or waterlogged.

Faith (and even other Biblical Flood supporters) are claiming that whole major features found in reality are products of the flood, critters found in layers that are hundreds or thousands of feet below today's surface were killed in the flood and that all the material above them was deposited by the flood, yet the Bible shows that deep layers of soil (not just dirt but soil) existed even as the flood waters were still receding.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin show ---> shows


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by saab93f, posted 08-02-2016 2:23 AM saab93f has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Pressie, posted 08-02-2016 9:01 AM jar has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 50 of 242 (788555)
08-02-2016 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
08-02-2016 8:48 AM


Re: On grapes and olives.
Magic olive trees both before and after the magic fluddie.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 8:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 9:29 AM Pressie has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 713 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 242 (788556)
08-02-2016 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
08-01-2016 5:49 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
You made up the conditions for the olive tree to grow, and for the vineyard to grow. You may think your imagination suffices for fact but I don't agree. You don't know where the olive tree was situated or what growing conditions it had; and since the Bible says an olive leaf was produced we know it came from a living tree that must have been situated where it had what it needed to grow. That's elementary for anyone who believes the Bible. Same with the vineyard. The Bible says Noah planted a vineyard; that means it had the necessary conditions to grow, no matter what you say. Everything you say discounts something in the Bible. The Bible is evidence to anyone who accepts it as God's word. Clearly you don't, but you have no right to put your own imagination above it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 5:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 9:37 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 52 of 242 (788557)
08-02-2016 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Pressie
08-02-2016 9:01 AM


Re: On grapes and olives.
Above average grape vines as well. It takes at least three years for a grape vine to mature to the point where it will produce fruit so the story implies the soil was present and suitable at least that long before the first harvest and early harvests are generally spotty and small.

Long long ago and in a land far far away, back when I was doing wine reviews for some magazines I wrote a story about a discovery made in an ancient vineyard in the middle east where they discovered a cache of wines dating back to 2000 BCE including a batch where a single grape produced a Nebuchadnezzar of wine. It was fermented, stored and aged while still in the grape.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Pressie, posted 08-02-2016 9:01 AM Pressie has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 53 of 242 (788558)
08-02-2016 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
08-02-2016 9:12 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:

You made up the conditions for the olive tree to grow, and for the vineyard to grow.

Actually Faith, once again reality proves you wrong. I looked up the conditions needed from both olive trees and wine grapes. I made up nothing there, rather asked them what actually know about reality.

Faith writes:

You don't know where the olive tree was situated or what growing conditions it had; and since the Bible says an olive leaf was produced we know it came from a living tree that must have been situated where it had what it needed to grow. That's elementary for anyone who believes the Bible. Same with the vineyard. The Bible says Noah planted a vineyard; that means it had the necessary conditions to grow, no matter what you say. Everything you say discounts something in the Bible. The Bible is evidence to anyone who accepts it as God's word. Clearly you don't, but you have no right to put your own imagination above it.

Again Faith, reality simply proves you wrong. I did not place my own imagination above the Bible but rather the evidence found in reality.

The problem is that if the olive tree existed and Noah did grow grapes then your imagination of what the flood did is wrong.

The flood if it happened was simply not world-wide or particularly catastrophic and that is not a matter of imagination but rather the universal conclusions of all of the evidence.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin the ---> that

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin bot ----> both


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 9:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 9:52 AM jar has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 974 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 54 of 242 (788560)
08-02-2016 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by saab93f
08-01-2016 1:36 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Can't you see how silly your magical arguments are? When someone presents you problems that reality present, you wave everything off with magic (this time it's magical olive tree that can withstand soggy soil).

What?

You don't have olive trees growing in the Karelian bogs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by saab93f, posted 08-01-2016 1:36 PM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by saab93f, posted 08-02-2016 10:46 AM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 713 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 242 (788561)
08-02-2016 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by jar
08-02-2016 9:37 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
I ALSO looked up the conditions necessary for olive trees and vineyards. You imagined soggy soil and let that dictate your rejection of the Biblical account. I assumed beneficial conditions. Neither can be proved, both are the product of educated imagination, but I trust the Bible and you don't. That's the whole of it.

The Bible says the Flood covered the earth. Period.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 9:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 10:06 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 56 of 242 (788562)
08-02-2016 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
08-02-2016 9:52 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:

I ALSO looked up the conditions necessary for olive trees and vineyards. You imagined soggy soil and let that dictate your rejection of the Biblical account. I assumed beneficial conditions. Neither can be proved, both are the product of educated imagination, but I trust the Bible and you don't. That's the whole of it.

The Bible says the Flood covered the earth. Period.

Once again Faith, reality proves you wrong. I did not imagine soggy soil or use that as any rejection of the Biblical stories.

Please stop misrepresenting my position and posts.

Here is the Olive tree post content.

quote:
There is yet more conclusions we can make based on the stories themselves.

The stories say that the Ark came to rest among mountains. It also says (at least one of the stories) that one of the indications was a a freshly picked olive leaf.

So what does that tell us?

Olive trees have a fairly shallow root system but one that extends far beyond the canopy line, often as much a four times the diameter of the canopy drip line.

They require a soil base, not lithified rock.

That means that the recessionary phase of the flood did not strip away the soil even in mountainous areas and that the flood duration at that location did not last long enough to kill the tree.

AbE:

We can say a little bit more based on the story itself. Olive trees cannot stand waterlogged soil and so even if the area around the tree received lots of rain the base did not remain underwater for any extended period and the excess water from the rain or "fountains of the deep" drained away rapidly; certainly for far less than a full year.


from Message 3

and:

quote:
In addition, the issue is not whether or not the soils before the imaginary flood were fertile, it is that the flood did not knock down the olive tree or cover the root system in water for more than a few days or harm the tree in anyway.

Physics is still physics. Biology is still biology. Chemistry is still chemistry. Mechanics is still mechanics. The Olive tree would have been the same Olive tree both before and after the flood. The soil the tree is growing in is still the soil that was there before the alleged flood.


from Message 13

and on the vineyard:

quote:
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.


So soggy soil was hardly an issue at all rather the depth and nature of the soil and the total lack of any evidence of erosion or flood damage in the stories when compared to the utter nonsense of "all the geological column is a product of the flood" was the issue.

The topic in case you had not noticed is describing what the Biblical Flood would be like and based on reality and the evidence found in the stories themselves I am attempting to do just that.

Yes, I admit there are internal inconsistencies, outright contradictions and impossibilities in the stories but those too are simply fact.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 9:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 10:15 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 713 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 57 of 242 (788564)
08-02-2016 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by jar
08-02-2016 10:06 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
I apologize for imputing too much of the argument about soggy soil to you, though you did mention waterlogging as a problem. But the principle still applies. You imagined a deficient amount of soil due to the Flood and let that imagination discredit the Biblical account of the olive tree. The Biblical account says the dove brought back a living olive leaf. That proves that the conditions were sufficient for an olive tree to live wherever it was planted. No further ponderings are necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 10:06 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 10:32 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 58 of 242 (788566)
08-02-2016 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
08-02-2016 10:15 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:

I apologize for imputing too much of the argument about soggy soil to you, though you did mention waterlogging as a problem. But the principle still applies. You imagined a deficient amount of soil due to the Flood and let that imagination discredit the Biblical account of the olive tree. The Biblical account says the dove brought back a living olive leaf. That proves that the conditions were sufficient for an olive tree to live wherever it was planted. No further ponderings are necessary.

Yet you always seem to ponder and make stuff up.

I am describing what must be seen if one of the Biblical Flood stories were true.

I actually believe there is a GOD and that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. That means the Earth and it's makeup was created by GOD.

The Bible on the other hand is simply a collection of stories written mostly by unknown authors, edited by unknown editors, selected by unknown Conference of Canon members, copied by unknown scribes, translated by unknown translators and redacted by unknown redactors.

I acknowledge the Bible stories contain the words that are there, including all the inconsistencies, factual errors and contradictions.

I do not simply check my brain at the door and further pondering is not just necessary but desirable.

And all I posted was what the conditions would need to be IF the Olive Tree really existed and the Vineyard really existed. If those conditions then conflict with some other part of the story it behooves us to look beyond the mere words of unknown men to the actual record of what does exist.

Edited by jar, : hit wrong key.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 10:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 11:04 AM jar has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 59 of 242 (788569)
08-02-2016 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by edge
08-02-2016 9:43 AM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
What?
You don't have olive trees growing in the Karelian bogs?

I'm afraid we don't. Neither do we have palm trees nor vineyards. We do have 180 000 lakes, very old and stable bedrock and loads of forests 😀

Our lakes often still show the direction of receding continental ice from roughly 10k years ago and pretty much everything else regarding landscape can be traced to the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by edge, posted 08-02-2016 9:43 AM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 713 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 242 (788571)
08-02-2016 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
08-02-2016 10:32 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
[qs]
Faith writes:

I apologize for imputing too much of the argument about soggy soil to you, though you did mention waterlogging as a problem. But the principle still applies. You imagined a deficient amount of soil due to the Flood and let that imagination discredit the Biblical account of the olive tree. The Biblical account says the dove brought back a living olive leaf. That proves that the conditions were sufficient for an olive tree to live wherever it was planted. No further ponderings are necessary.

Yet you always seem to ponder and make stuff up.

And I'm pointing out what I've often said, there is no way to deal with events in the past EXCEPT by imagination, by educated imaginative reconstruction, and you can't get any closer to the truth than a reasonable plausibility. What I'm objecting to is your accusing me of making up stuff as if that's an error when that's all you are doing too.

And I'm going further and saying that my imaginations start from the basis of the truth of God's word whereas you don't bother to respect what the Bible says but freely come up with imaginings that discredit it. You assume things about the Flood that make the account of the dove's bringing back an olive leaf false; you assume things about the Flood that make the account of Noah's vineyard false. There is no reason to assume such things about the Flood. We can't know such things about the Flood with the certainty you seem to claim.

But whatever the Bible says about it should be taken as the truth, which you don't do. So I read up on olive trees and vineyards and construct a scenario that supports the Flood in opposition to your kneejerk debunkery. You put your own thoughts above God's. In contrast, I'm looking for possibilities in the real world that support the Biblical account.

And they aren't all that hard to come up with. Clearly the soil was NOT completely destroyed by the Flood even if you imagine it should have been. The higher the tree was planted the more likely the soil would have survived. Whatever the reason, the Bible is clear there was a living olive tree even if we can't imagine how it was possible.

More time may have passed than you assume before Noah planted his vineyard. It may have been planted on a well-drained slope. Of course I'm imagining, but I'm doing it in the service of supporting what you are trying to tear down. Neither of us can possibly know what happened, but your trusting in your own guesses as if you could know, against God's word, is reprehensible in someone who considers himself a Christian.

I am describing what must be seen if one of the Biblical Flood stories were true.

No you aren't. You are selectively imagining a few things that might have been the case. There are lots of other possibilities you aren't taking into account. And you can't prove any of it, it's pure speculation, there is hardly the certainty you impute to it, as "what must be seen" as if you have prophetic hindsight or something. And there are not two stories of the Flood.

I actually believe there is a GOD and that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. That means the Earth and it's makeup was created by GOD.

As scripture tells us, even the demons believe that much, and they tremble at the knowledge.

The Bible on the other hand is simply a collection of stories written mostly by unknown authors, edited by unknown editors, selected by unknown Conference of Canon members, copied by unknown scribes, translated by unknown translators and redacted by unknown redactors.

How do you let yourself assert such a fallible human perspective as if there is any real basis for it other than your fallible prejudices? The Bible is God's word, inspired by Him through His own chosen representatives. You are pitting yourself against God. He gave us His word because without it we don't stand a chance of interpreting His character accurately, and especially not events of the past where we are blind as bats and subject to the influences of our own fallen nature aided and abetted by Satan.

I acknowledge the Bible stories contain the words that are there, including all the inconsistencies, factual errors and contradictions.

In that you are pitting yourself against all the Biblical writers and all the believers in God's revelation and God Himself.

I do not simply check my brain at the door and further pondering is not just necessary but desirable.

Your brain is FALLEN. You'd be a lot better off if you checked it at the door. Trusting in your own fallible impressions is a deadly mistake. There is no loss of intelligence involved in belief; it is simply to be applied in the service of supporting God's word instead of destroying it.

And all I posted was what the conditions would need to be IF the Olive Tree really existed and the Vineyard really existed.

And that's what I did too. Only you allowed yourself to treat them as fiction, which no Bible believer should ever do with God's word. And it isn't necessary. There are many ways of imagining the conditions to support the olive tree and the vineyard. All we have is imagination, you let yours oppose God as the fallen human mind always does. You need to be regenerated and receive a renewed mind.

If those conditions then conflict with some other part of the story it behooves us to look beyond the mere words of unknown men to the actual record of what does exist.

You flatter yourself. There is no reason to imagine conditions conflicting, it's your fallen nature that does that, not the requirements of reality.

Edited by Faith, : correct punctuation

Edited by Faith, : Paragraphing

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 10:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 11:17 AM Faith has replied
 Message 67 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 1:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022