Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
626 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, vimesey (5 members, 621 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,144 Year: 6,256/6,534 Month: 449/650 Week: 219/278 Day: 15/44 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 242 (788579)
08-02-2016 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
08-02-2016 11:17 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
We know what conditions are necessary to grow Olive Trees and Grape Vines. In fact folk even make a living actually growing Olive Trees and Grape Vines.

The conditions needed are not a matter of imagination.

I didn't say they were, speaking of misrepresentations.

What I said was:

1) You are imagining that the necessary conditions were not present for the olive leaf and the vineyard to be true accounts. There is no reason to do that. You made up the circumstances to turn the Biblical account into a lie.

2) You are also imposing a uniformitarian assumption on the olive tree and the vineyard of scripture. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 11:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 11:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 08-02-2016 12:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 242 (788595)
08-02-2016 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
08-02-2016 11:54 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
What I am saying is that "If the Olive Tree and Vineyard stories are true here are the conditions that must have existed at that time."

And I'm saying you have made up the conditions that would have existed for the tree and the vineyard and since they discredit the Biblical account they are wrong. Clearly those are not the conditions in which the tree and the vineyard existed.

Also I am just looking at evidence in the real world.

Which is the uniformitarian assumption I was talking about, which does not apply to the pre-Flood world. However, THAT world was no less "real" than the current world, despite your attempt to create that illusion.

There is no evidence to support your assertion that "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."

Of COURSE there is no evidence in THIS world for all that. It's all spelled out in scripture -- for the very reason that we couldn't imagine such things if God hadn't revealed them to us. Trusting in the conditions of THIS world, which is what uniformitarianism is, is what leads you to dismiss the Biblical revelation. Which I've already said many times. You merely confirm yourself in disbelief in the Bible by trusting in "evidence" that is guaranteed to conflict with it. You will forever deprive yourself of knowledge of things that can't be gained in this world or through our fallen minds. I look forward to the reinstatement of the original Creation and then some, through Christ's redemptive work, so I happily try to understand what it was like as far as the scanty information in scripture allows. Why you would want to discredit it all and deprive yourself of that is beyond me.

That is simply dogma and while it might be relevant in some Bible study class it is irrelevant in a Science thread unless you can provide support.

I think it was Chesterton who wrote a wonderful book about why Christian dogma is the only way we can ever know anything of importance, but be that as it may, I expect the dogma of the Biblical revelation to guide me in the end to a completely new creation of such vitality and glory I can't even imagine it. What I learn from the Flood is how we lost the splendor and vitality of the first creation. But God sent Christ to give us hope of something even better.\

So now you want to invoke the Science restriction on me after all this? OK, fine by me. I'm not interested in the judgments of Fallen Science against the realities revealed in God's word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 11:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 1:55 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 66 of 242 (788596)
08-02-2016 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
08-02-2016 12:29 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
I assumed the olive tree and the vineyards also had beneficial conditions, not merely their own vitality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 08-02-2016 12:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 08-02-2016 1:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 242 (788601)
08-02-2016 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by herebedragons
08-02-2016 1:05 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
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.

The problem is not "educated imaginative reconstructions" it is conflicting explanations; explanations that are "imagined" to prop up a particular issue irregardless of how they effect explanations that have previously been put out to prop up other issues.

An unsupported accusation it seems to me.

Is it not your contention that the ENTIRE geological column is a product of the flood?

That is my working hypothesis.

And is it also not your contention that ALL tectonic activity occurred AFTER the entire geological column was laid down?

That is also my best guess based on the evidence, but I'm open to rethinking it.

Is it not your contention that the ENTIRE surface of the earth was wiped clean by the rising waters of the flood?

I don't think I said anything that blatant, and whatever I said started with the rain as saturating the earth so that it would have been liable to mudslides and so on and so forth. How complete the scouring would have been how should I know?

And was it not you that declared mainstream geologic explanations to be bogus due to the lack of "livable landscapes" buried in the flood sediments?

Huh? My thread on that subject is still open, and it's about the apparent implication that each time period represents a landscape based on the "depositional environment" interpreted from clues in the rock layer that is assigned to that time period, which I maintain is a fiction. "Buried in the flood sediments?" What ARE you talking about?

In this case, the roots of Mt. Ararat should be buried beneath flood sediments so as to be one of these so called "livable landscapes" you complain do not exist.

You've somehow managed to garble the topic so badly I don't even know what you are talking about.

Your "imaginative reconstructions" are not very educated, they are simply ad-hoc explanations to prop up your premises.

They're educated in the exact sense I used the word, as based on reading up on the conditions required for healthy olive trees and vineyards. Beyond that, if they are ad hoc, so are jar's and any other attempts at imaginative reconstruction of the conditions applied to the Biblical text, and his discredit the Bible; mine don't.

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 do realize these comments are just personal attacks, right? They don't support your argument, they simply belittle and condemn your opponent.

Seems to me what I said is a completely factual description of what he is doing. I also included some preaching that could have been left out, a couple of statements, but the preaching was the response to his attacks on me. He preaches worldly science with no less dogmatic belittling and condemnation of the opponent, as you all do, and I'm not always in a mood to take it lying down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 1:05 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 5:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 242 (788602)
08-02-2016 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
08-02-2016 1:28 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Why do you assume the "bottom?" The Flood was abating, the mountains were visible, the ark was either already at rest on Ararat or about to arrive there, I forget the timing. Why not assume the olive tree grew in the mountains?

The vineyard was planted after they'd left the ark and were living on the land; and it is very possible it was years after they had disembarked that he planted it, scripture does not say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 08-02-2016 1:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 08-03-2016 11:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 242 (788606)
08-02-2016 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by saab93f
08-02-2016 1:53 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
For the reference to the bottom of the Flood water see my Message 70.

What puzzles me a lot is that in order to make any "sense" of floodstories one has to invent alternative reality with water canopy

Misrepresentation. The canopy was based on some clues in the Creation account.

or magical genetic material

Misrepresentation. There is nothing magical about heterozygosity.

or 8 people being able to create big cities within few generations...

Misrepresentation. Go do the math, compute the numbers of sons born to Noah's sons and then to their sons, assume as many daughters, continue another couple of generations and you'll see that many settlements would already have to have been the result. Large cities grow from the settlements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by saab93f, posted 08-02-2016 1:53 PM saab93f has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 242 (788608)
08-02-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
08-02-2016 1:55 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
You are misrepresenting my argument in many ways but I'd LOVE to get off this thread, now that you've decided to stop encouraging Biblical reasoning and invoke Holy Science against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 1:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 2:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 242 (788624)
08-02-2016 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by herebedragons
08-02-2016 5:05 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
The implication of the story of the olive branch (and your comments on such) is that the mountain, the olive tree, and the soils it was growing in pre-existed the flood. Ok, fine. Not very plausible that the tree survived under water for a year, but ok, maybe it went dormant.

If the tree was growing high in the mountains it wouldn't have BEEN underwater for a year. The Flood wouldn't have reached it until the very last stages, then it would have sat underwater maybe a couple of months before it saw the light of day again as the water receded from the higher land.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 5:05 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 6:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 242 (788629)
08-02-2016 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by herebedragons
08-02-2016 5:05 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
I don't think I said anything that blatant, and whatever I said started with the rain as saturating the earth so that it would have been liable to mudslides and so on and so forth. How complete the scouring would have been how should I know?

It had to be so complete that there was enough materials stripped off the land to produce a mile or so of sedimentary deposits that were then put back on to the bare surface. I am pretty sure you have said or implied that all loose materials would have been removed and even pre-flood rock would have been eroded to some extent.

I did think that at one time, but I've modified my older hypotheses. Walther's Law came up later and gave me a different angle on things. It gave a picture of OCEAN sediments being brought up onto the land so that now it seems to me those account for probably most of the volume of the deposited strata. The huge chalk cliffs of Dover wouldn't have resulted from the scouring of the land of course, nor the thick limestone deposits, nor the huge deposits of sand either despite all the notions of "dunes."

In this case, the roots of Mt. Ararat should be buried beneath flood sediments so as to be one of these so called "livable landscapes" you complain do not exist.

You've somehow managed to garble the topic so badly I don't even know what you are talking about.

The implication of the story of the olive branch (and your comments on such) is that the mountain, the olive tree, and the soils it was growing in pre-existed the flood. Ok, fine. Not very plausible that the tree survived under water for a year, but ok, maybe it went dormant.

This I just answered separately.

However, there is also tons and tons of sediment being deposited across the world. Miles deep in some places, remember?

If Mt. Ararat pre-existed the flood and was not formed after the sediments were deposited we should see the base of the mountain buried in sediment. This would be the very pattern you say does not exist - a landscape buried beneath the sediment. You claim that no such mountain buried beneath sediment can be found.

Wow have you made mush out of what I was saying. There was ALWAYS landscape PRE-EXISTING the Flood, the created world for pete's sake, that would have been covered by the sediments, the exact opposite of what you claim I said does not exist. What doesn't exist is the imaginary "landscapes" that are posited to have covered the surface of the earth during each "time period," and that's because there WERE no time periods, only the sedimentary layers that were built by the Flood.

As for Mt. Ararat, whatever mountains pre-existed the Flood are generally thought to have been a lot lower than those we have today, which are thought to have been pushed up by the tectonic forces that occurred in relation to the Flood, some say during, I usually think afterward. How Ararat might have been affected I haven't studied, but it seems fair at least to suppose it was high enough to escape being covered by the Flood until the very last stage. By that time I have the impression there was less sediment being deposited for some reason, a topic which has come up on the Timescale thread recently. Probably the base of the mountain was covered in sedimentary deposits as you say, but on the other hand I don't know where all the strata got deposited and some places never got strata or not much. However, your idea that I denied that such a phenomenon would have happened is false. You somehow got a wacky idea about what I meant by the landscapes that don't exist. MAYBE my fault, that's always a possibility, but maybe not.

So here's the conundrum:

If the mountain formed AFTER the sediment was deposited, there is no way the olive tree could have been growing on it in the time frame specified in the Biblical account.

If the mountain pre-existed the flood, so that the olive tree was able to survive and grow, then it is impossible that ALL the sediments in the world are a result of the flood, since the base of the mountain is NOT buried in sediment.

Well, there's no way the mountain formed after the Flood, so you can scratch that one. Then for your second scenario you could try to prove that the base of the mountain was never covered in sediments, in which case you should also show evidence that there is no strata in that region, or you could prove that it wasn't tectonically affected later so as to be pushed up above such deposits, or to incorporate the deposited strata into the mountain. In any case there's no problem with the idea that at the end of the Flood a tree growing in its upper reaches could have emerged from the water after a relatively short dip to provide the dove with a branch to take to Noah.

They're educated in the exact sense I used the word, as based on reading up on the conditions required for healthy olive trees and vineyards.

Really... where did you read that the conditions for healthy olive trees and vineyards involved being underwater for several months?

Now now now, please read the above, and could you please stop being so... irritable?

Where did you read about what the soil conditions were like before the flood? Or growing conditions in general? How was it you "educated" yourself about healthy olive trees? Sources please.

Just as jar read up on what the plants need in today's world, so did I. Instead of imagining a soggy soil for the vineyard I imagined a circumstance that would provide the good drainage that grapevines need. I imagined that the Flood didn't eradicate all the soil for the olive tree. I also imagined pre-Flood vitality such as Noah and his family obviously had, and all living things before the Flood, so that they could survive some hardships. Sources? The Bible for the pre-Flood vitality of course. For the rest, maybe Wikipedia but I don't remember. Look up "growing conditions for olive trees" and the same for grapevines or some such. And PLEASE try to be less cantankerous.

Seems to me what I said is a completely factual description of what he is doing. I also included some preaching that could have been left out, a couple of statements, but the preaching was the response to his attacks on me. He preaches worldly science with no less dogmatic belittling and condemnation of the opponent, as you all do, and I'm not always in a mood to take it lying down.

Factual or not, it is NOT a rebuttal to any argument he had made. It amounts to saying he is wrong because he is a despicable, evil human being.

No, he is wrong because he doesn't respect the Bible as God's word, which is something nobody who calls himself a Christian should do. You put more words than that in my mouth.

And you all preach at me all the time to give up the Bible as the final authority and bow down to Science instead. At least I'm preaching from the truth.

But as I keep saying I really don't want to remain on this thread anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 5:05 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 8:59 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 242 (788631)
08-02-2016 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by jar
08-02-2016 6:33 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
According the stories the rain only continued for 40 days and 40 nights.

Olive trees are tropical plants and cannot live through long cold spells so it could not be very high in the mountains.

The mountains weren't very high anyway and there were no cold spells in the pre-Flood world and the pre-Flood vitality would have carried it through that much hardship anyway.

Can you provide a source that says olive trees can withstand being underwater for a couple months or even just having the roots underwater for a couple months.

This olive tree was born and reared in the pre-Flood world with the vitality to withstand hardship.

Source: Genesis.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 6:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 7:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 242 (788652)
08-03-2016 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by herebedragons
08-02-2016 8:59 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Provide a cross section of what? The pre-Flood world? You're joking? I have no idea what such a cross section would do for you. You got some very wrong idea about what I meant by a landscape, and I tried to correct your misimpression. I can't tell yet if you got the message. I said I was only talking about the Geo Timescale imaginary "landscapes" invented to illustrate what the clues in the rocks seem to suggest, but there was always A landscape, that would have been covered in sedimentary layers Now you want a cross section of that? Whatever for?

Oh, to find out if Ararat was covered with strata? First wouldn't you have to find out if sediment was eroded away from Ararat in the first stage of the Flood, during the long period of heavy rain?

If you aren't cantankerous you are doing a fine job of seeming to be, making irrelevant demands in a very dictatorial tone and so on.

Yes there is no time frame for the vineyard, Noah could have planted it years after the Flood for all we know. I was answering the idea that the soil would be soggy by putting it on a hillside where it would have the necessary drainage. But if it was planted years later there wouldn't have been any problem with soggy soil anyway.

You are also making tyrannical demands about what I should have learned from what I read about olive trees, and defining "education" to suit yourself as well. What's going on with you? What I described was not all that controversial. I read enough to answer the specific claim about the olive tree. Too bad if I missed a part that would have supported my position better, but your contention that proves I didn't read anything about it at all is twisting things to fit some scenario that allows you to upbraid me. I imagined things according to what I understood the plants needed. That's what educated imagination means. There is nothing wrong with that and no of course it didn't come from Wikipedia. What is wrong with you?

So now you are going on and on with your uniformitarian assumptions as if they are simply fact. Sorry, creationists pretty much all agree that the pre-Flood world was not the same as the world now, that the mountains were lower, that the climate was warm, and there is every reason to impute great vitality to all living things if only based on the longevity of the line of patriarchs and Noah and his family. But you dictatorially insist on forcing your "scientific" uniformitarian opinion on us against the evidence of scripture that we rely on.

But what else should I expect from a "Christian" who is willing to let his own educated imagination trump what God's word says? Yes, NOW you can get really pushed out of shape.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 8:59 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 08-03-2016 10:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 98 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2016 1:21 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 242 (788654)
08-03-2016 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Coyote
08-02-2016 9:57 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
In these threads we are hearing about 100-200 million year old--or older--geological layers as being deposited by the flood, and we are also hearing that olive trees were around earlier than that?

But scientists seem to place the first olive-like trees some 60,000 years ago. And biblical scholars place the flood something close to 4,350 years ago. Bit of a difference among those dates, eh?

Do you know what a paradigm clash is, Coyote? It doesn't sound like you do. It's where DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT THE WORLD conflict. You keep insisting on your own paradigm as if there were no other. Your hundreds of millions of years of layers belong to YOUR paradigm. Based on YOUR paradigm you misrepresent the creationist view of the olive tree. Just once step outside the box, meaning outside of your own paradigm, long enough to see that the creationist paradigm or worldview is entirely different from yours. There were no hundreds of millions of years of layers. The olive tree could not have lived millions of years ago, not even your "scientific" 60,000 years ago; that's all based on YOUR worldview or paradigm, not ours. Ours says the millions of years are bogus and that the world is thousands of years old, the Flood WAS some 4500 years ago and the olive tree grew in the world that preceded it. You are welcome to your own paradigm, but you are misusing it in this context.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2016 9:57 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2016 10:37 AM 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