Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9082 total)
127 online now:
DrJones*, nwr, vimesey (3 members, 124 visitors)
Newest Member: Daniel Grossman
Post Volume: Total: 897,114 Year: 8,226/6,534 Month: 1,295/1,124 Week: 64/430 Day: 64/35 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 242 (788610)
08-02-2016 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
08-02-2016 2:08 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:
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.
And of course once again reality shows you are wrong. There is no such thing as Holy Science and the Science forums have always required evidence and reasoning to support assertions. There are lots of forums where Biblical matters can be discussed including the factual errors, contradiction and inconsistencies found throughout the Bible stories.
If I am misrepresenting your argument then provide the links and quotes to support that assertions. It's not hard, done all the time here.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin required required

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 2:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 77 of 242 (788622)
08-02-2016 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
08-02-2016 1:49 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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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.
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.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 1:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 5:43 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 6:49 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 804 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

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


Message 79 of 242 (788627)
08-02-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
08-02-2016 5:43 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:
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.
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.
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.
According to one of the Biblical Flood myths the flood covered the high hills by 15 cubits or about 22-23 feet. Since there is no mention of which hills that only gives us the minimum clearance the Ark experienced. Fifteen cubits is not enough to submerge any but the smallest olive trees but unless the tree was at the pinnacle of one of the "high hills" it is deep enough to cover an olive tree fully.
So what is needed is some reference that will tell us how long an olive tree can be fully submerged before it dies.
Secondary information needed would be "how long can a olive tree root system be under water and still survive."
Those two factors would tell us the maximum duration of the flood at the location of the Olive Tree in the story.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 5:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 6:52 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 804 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 804 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

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


Message 82 of 242 (788633)
08-02-2016 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
08-02-2016 6:52 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:
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 any hardship anyway.
That is one of those really really really silly claims that supporters of a Young Earth and a Biblical Flood often mention.
But as usual all the actual evidence shows that environmental conditions before the date when the flood would have happened were pretty much the same as after the date when the flood would have happened and that there was no pre-flood vitality and that there WERE cold spells before the flood.
Once again Faith reality simply shows you are wrong. Stop just making stuff up.
Also, Faith, the dates you and others use for the flood are after writing was developed yet no one seems to have noticed mountains getting taller enough to even send out a tweet.
The idea of tectonic activity related to the flood is yet another one of those silly apologetic creations and not supported in anyway by either of the Flood Myths.
Faith writes:
This olive tree was born and reared in the pre-Flood world with the vitality to withstand hardship.
Source: Genesis.
Genesis does say the Olive tree had leaves after the flood and so existed before the flood but again, that is simply dogma and not evidence of anything except what the story said.
In a Science forum and a thread on describing conditions something more than once upon a time in a land far far away is needed to support anything more than the fact that the story said "once upon a time in a land far far away".
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 6:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 83 of 242 (788640)
08-02-2016 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
08-02-2016 6:49 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
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.
Could you please provide a cross-section that shows these pre-existing landscapes in the form of mountains, hills, river beds, and whatever else may have existed before the flood that were subsequently covered by flood sediments.
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.
Why should I have to prove all that? If this pre-existing surface (which includes the mountains of Ararat) was covered by flood deposits then it should be easy to spot it on all sorts of cross sections. It is your hypothesis, I am simply proposing what we should observe if your hypothesis were true.
Look up "growing conditions for olive trees" and the same for grapevines or some such. And PLEASE try to be less cantankerous.
Your projecting, there was nothing cantankerous in my attitude.
I don't have an issue with the vineyard; there is really no time frame mentioned for when Noah harvested grapes - it could have been years (it would take at least 3 years to harvest fruit and produce wine but it very well could have been that long).
But its pretty clear that you really didn't get your ideas about the olive tree from educating yourself about growing conditions for olive trees. If you had looked it up, you would have found that olive trees can vigorously re-sprout from their roots when the above ground portions are killed. I would expect that you would have mentioned that fact because it would have supported your premise.
But instead of presenting what you had learned about growing conditions for olive trees, you "imagined" pre-flood vitality that allowed the tree to survive unsurvivable conditions. No, you didn't find that in Wikipedia.
Olive trees are Mediterranean plants and cannot survive temperatures below -10C. They don't grow in mountains because it is too cold (to which you "imagined" that mountains were much smaller back then). Like all plants, olives need oxygen to survive (even when dormant) and being under water even for a week or two would cause them to suffocate - they do not have the ability to extract oxygen from water. Roots also need oxygen and would also suffocate underwater. A "couple of months" is far too long for an olive tree to be underwater and survive (to which you imagine that olive trees had some trait that allowed them to survive under water but was subsequently lost after the flood).
Why would I consider this to be "educated?"
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 6:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 08-02-2016 9:43 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2016 9:57 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 08-03-2016 10:13 AM herebedragons has replied

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


Message 84 of 242 (788641)
08-02-2016 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by herebedragons
08-02-2016 8:59 PM


just a comment on the olive and grape.
My posts assumed both the olive tree and the grape vines existed and were mature enough to produce leaves and fruits.
The major points were first that the flood itself was not so violent that it toppled the relatively shallow rooted olive tree and that in both cases the soil itself was neither washed away by the flood or contaminated in any way by the flood. The second point was that in the case of the olive tree the tree itself as well as the root system was not covered in water for any extended periods, certainly not a year or even months. Some trees can withstand extended periods of their root systems and parts of the trunk being underwater but olive does not seem to be one of those species. Finally. the olive tree would not have been so high in the mountains that it was exposed to overnight cold temperatures.
The olive tree needed at least a soil depth of three to five feet and extending out several times the canopy width and grapes need an even deeper soil base, ten feet or more.
That the soil was not eroded away in either case seems to indicate a different picture of the flood than what Faith proposed. Far from moving tens or hundreds or thousands of feet existing materials or eroding already lithified soils, the olive tree and vineyards stories show a far gentler, more gradual flood more like the annual flooding of the Nile, the Amazon, Asian rice paddies and Indian monsoons.
Nowhere did I question the existence of either the Olive Tree of the story or the vineyard of the story but simply used them as a guide to what would have been seen if true.
And the point and purpose of this whole thread was to try to demonstrate that not only could the flood conditions be understood, the reasoning could also indicate what should be seen in the form of evidence if there had been a Biblical Flood.
The assumption begins with the position that the Biblical flood narratives, even though contradictory and mutually exclusive, were true and based on that position, what was the Biblical flood like and what evidence should be seen.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 8:59 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 85 of 242 (788642)
08-02-2016 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by herebedragons
08-02-2016 8:59 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?
The bottom line: its useless to debate pre- vs. post flood conditions or most anything else relating to the flood because creationists are not using real-world evidence in their arguments. Its all made up, ad hoc "what ifs", designed to fit their a priori beliefs (somehow--anyhow) into the real-world evidence.
It doesn't matter how unrealistic the fit, or how much the evidence contradicts those "what ifs" -- anything that will support belief will do. And when all the "what ifs" are disproved, they just start over as the evidence doesn't really matter. Belief is everything.
And then many of them claim to be doing science?

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 83 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 8:59 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 08-03-2016 10:30 AM Coyote has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 804 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

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


Message 87 of 242 (788653)
08-03-2016 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
08-03-2016 10:13 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:
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, plus the fat that although the length of life declined after the Flood some nevertheless continued to live past a hundred. But you dictatorially insist on forcing your "scientific" uniformitarian opinion on us against the evidence of scripture that we relyl on.
But the problem Faith is that what scripture says is irrelevant beyond the fact of acknowledging what scripture says. It has nothing to do with reality or science. And what Creationists believe is also totally irrelevant unless they can provide the evidence from the real world to support their beliefs.
This is a thread about describing what the Biblical Flood would be like and basing that description on what the stories actually say.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 08-03-2016 10:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 804 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 89 of 242 (788655)
08-03-2016 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
08-03-2016 10:30 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
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.
Your post seems to suggest that all ideas are of equal merit. They are not.
Not all ideas are equally supported by the real-world evidence.
Some ideas, like the global flood, are flatly contradicted by the real-world evidence.

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 88 by Faith, posted 08-03-2016 10:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 08-03-2016 10:51 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 804 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 242 (788656)
08-03-2016 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coyote
08-03-2016 10:37 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Some ideas, like the global flood, are flatly contradicted by the real-world evidence.
This is false. The evidence for the Flood is everywhere, real-world evidence that is only contradicted by your paradigm, not by reality. If you weren't blinded by your bogus dates you could see that there is no other reasonable explanation for the Geo Column and its fossils than a worldwide Flood. It's a perfectly ridiculous scenario that opposes the Flood, not reality at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2016 10:37 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 08-03-2016 11:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2016 11:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022