|
Author
|
Topic: Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 64 of 242 (788591)
08-02-2016 12:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
08-02-2016 11:29 AM
|
|
Re: On some pre-flood environment
| Faith writes: Since Noah and his sons lived many hundreds of years after the Flood there is clearly a vitality that was imparted to them in their pre-Flood lives that carried them through that long. This extra vitality would also have been the case with olive trees and grapevines. It took some centuries after the Flood for the perfect created world to cease its influence and the fallen world to manifest completely. |
If the olive trees and grapevines had some non-magical but still imaginary properties before the flood that allowed them to survive the flood... why not the animals too? Why couldn't the pre-flood super-cows hold their breaths for a year? It would have saved Noah a lot of carpentry.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 11:29 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 68 of 242 (788600)
08-02-2016 1:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
08-02-2016 12:52 PM
|
|
Re: On some pre-flood environment
| Faith writes: I assumed the olive tree and the vineyards also had beneficial conditions, not merely their own vitality. |
How can there be "beneficial conditions" at the bottom of a flood? They would have been under fifteen cubits of water.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 12:52 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 1:53 PM | | ringo has replied | | | Message 71 by saab93f, posted 08-02-2016 1:53 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 95 of 242 (788661)
08-03-2016 11:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
08-02-2016 1:53 PM
|
|
Re: On some pre-flood environment
| Faith writes: Why do you assume the "bottom?" The Flood was abating.... |
The flood wasn't abating the whole time. The waters prevailed for 150 days. Have creationists bothered to do an experiment to test whether an olive tree can survive under water for 150 days?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 1:53 PM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by jar, posted 08-03-2016 12:06 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 137 of 242 (788883)
08-06-2016 1:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by ICANT
08-04-2016 5:31 PM
|
|
| ICANT writes: But according to the Bible there was one land mass at the time of the flood. Genesis 1:9 |
That isn't what Genesis 1:9 says. It says the waters were gathered together in one place, not the land. There could have been thousands of land masses - and not surprisingly, there are. | ICANT writes: We do know there was enough water available to cover all the dry land with water, as it did in Genesis 1:2. |
Genesis 1:2 doesn't say that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2016 5:31 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 141 by ICANT, posted 08-09-2016 3:09 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 145 of 242 (789006)
08-09-2016 11:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 141 by ICANT
08-09-2016 3:09 AM
|
|
| ICANT writes: So you don't believe all the land mass was in one place in the past. |
The Bible doesn't say that it was. You'd have to twist what the Bible says to create any consilience with science. The OP suggests several specific things that we should see if the flood really happened. The age of the earth isn't particularly relevant, nor is any other consilience with science.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 141 by ICANT, posted 08-09-2016 3:09 AM | | ICANT has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 172 of 242 (789271)
08-12-2016 11:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 167 by ICANT
08-12-2016 2:17 AM
|
|
Re: Science vs. creation "science"
| ICANT writes: There was no one before that who made any notes about what the movement of the plates was. So there can only be an assumption that they have always been the same. |
Nobody wrote about gravity before gravity was discovered. Yet it seems to be a reasonable assumption that gravity has always behaved in the same way. The default position would be that the plates have always moved in a similar way to the way they move now. You would need some concrete reason to assume otherwise. Edited by ringo, : Speling.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 167 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 2:17 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2016 4:20 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 179 of 242 (789335)
08-13-2016 11:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
08-13-2016 4:20 AM
|
|
Re: Science vs. creation "science"
| ICANT writes: So both were based on an assumption. |
REASONABLE assumption - i.e. an assumption based on reason. You have no reason to assume that the tectonic plates moves at a fundamentally different rate at some time in the past. That would be an UNreasonable assumption.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2016 4:20 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 181 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2016 4:56 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 184 of 242 (789472)
08-15-2016 11:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
08-14-2016 4:56 PM
|
|
Re: Science vs. creation "science"
| ICANT writes: An assumption is an assumption which is accepted as truth by those whose world view it fits. |
Wrong. An assumption is based on the conclusion of another investigation. For example, we can "assume" that the sun will rise in the east because that's where we have always observed it rising. Stonehenge was built on the basis of the assumption that celestial events will continue as they have been observed. | ICANT writes: Sure I have reason to make my assumption. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years. But I believe it took place in a nano second or less. |
That's not a "reason". It's an empty speculation. You are also wrong about what the Bible says.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2016 4:56 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 185 by JonF, posted 08-15-2016 2:42 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 187 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 2:50 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 195 of 242 (789534)
08-16-2016 11:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 187 by ICANT
08-16-2016 2:50 AM
|
|
Re: Science vs. creation "science"
| ICANT writes: Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water. |
As I've already pointed out to you, the Bible doesn't say that. It says the water was in one place, not the land. | ICANT writes: Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today. |
The Bible doesn't say that either. When the earth was divided in the time of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), it clearly refers to the division of nations (Genesis 10:32), which clearly refers to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). It has nothing to do with continental drift. The Bible didn't predict continental drift. Nobody thought of interpreting it that way until after continental drift was confirmed by science. You're trying to reverse-engineer agreement of the Bible with science. And continental drift has nothing to do with what we would see if the Flood had happened. | ICANT writes: Someone who believes the Bible is a myth telling me I am wrong about what the Bible says is hilarious. |
If you believed in Zeus you'd be wrong, whether I thought Zeus was a myth or not. Edited by ringo, : Spelding.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 187 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 2:50 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 197 by ICANT, posted 08-17-2016 2:57 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 200 of 242 (789637)
08-17-2016 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by ICANT
08-17-2016 2:57 AM
|
|
Re: Science vs. creation "science"
| ICANT writes: With the two different Hebrew words used in Genesis 10:25 and then in Genesis 11:8, 9 there is no way the text in Genesis 10:25 can be translated as the nations or people being dispersed over the land mass. |
Of course it CAN be translated that way and it always IS translated that way. Can you cite any translation that agrees with you? The translators don't ignore the context like you do. As I pointed out, Genesis 10:32 uses the same word "divided" and clearly associates the division with the families of the sons of Noah. It was the people who were divided, not the land. But even IF the Bible mentioned continental drift, it is NOT something that we would expect to be associated with the Flood.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by ICANT, posted 08-17-2016 2:57 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 203 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2016 2:29 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
|
|
Message 207 of 242 (789793)
08-19-2016 11:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by ICANT
08-19-2016 2:29 AM
|
|
Re: Science vs. creation "science"
| ICANT writes: Your Hebrew needs a lot of work. The Hebrew word ôøã means separate. Genesis 10:32
The Hebrew word ôìâ means divided or split. Genesis 10:25 |
Your English needs a lot of work. Separate, divided and split all mean the same thing, which the translators understood even if you do not. | ICANT writes: Well the Bible don't mention continental drift. It just states that in the days (during his lifetime) of Peleg the earth was divided. |
You can't just ignore the context. Genesis 10 starts with the generations of Noah and ends with the generations of Noah. Verse 5 says that the Gentiles were divided by their tongues. The next chapter tells how the nations were divided by their tongues at Babel. Two chapters talking about division of people and no mention at all about division of continents. And nothing to do with the Flood.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2016 2:29 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ringo
Member Posts: 19752 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005 Member Rating: 2.9
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 232 of 242 (790600)
09-01-2016 11:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 231 by Boof
09-01-2016 10:34 AM
|
|
| Boof writes: In fact there are so many I'm amazed you couldn't find a single one. |
Faith's own source says that her map happened millions of years ago. It's funny how she cherry-picks the parts she likes and ignores the rest. It's right when it agrees with her misinterpretation of the Bible but the same source is wrong when it disagrees with her other misinterpretation of the Bible.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 231 by Boof, posted 09-01-2016 10:34 AM | | Boof has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 233 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2016 3:45 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.1
