Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
115 online now:
Aussie, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric (5 members, 110 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,235 Year: 6,347/6,534 Month: 540/650 Week: 78/232 Day: 17/38 Hour: 0/3


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
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 97 of 242 (788664)
08-03-2016 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ringo
08-03-2016 11:46 AM


On life underwater
Ringo writes:

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?

Again that depends on which version of the story you consult. In one version it rains for 40 days and nights and then the water recedes for another 40 days. In the other version the flood lasts for a calendar year.

To allow those who wish to claim the Biblical Flood happened it would be nice to let them use the shorter period and assume the olive tree in question is located where it will surface almost immediately after the rains stop and initial recession begins. They can just show an olive tree can withstand being underwater for 40 days. Give them a break and assume the olive tree is one of the last things covered and so is underwater for just a week.

AbE:

However, the question remains that the Olive Tree did not get knocked over or washed away by the Biblical Flood and in both instances, the soil needed to grow Olive Trees and to grow grapes was not washed away or contaminated which certainly contradicts a flood capable of washing away lithified material.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Edited by jar, : see AbE:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 08-03-2016 11:46 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-04-2016 10:50 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 103 of 242 (788683)
08-03-2016 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
08-03-2016 3:07 PM


Please stop posting falsehoods and misrepresentation about what I post Faith
Faith writes:

Jar is making up all his evidence, how the olive tree COULDN'T have survived, how there COULDN'T have been a vineyard.

Once again Faith you are simply posting falsehoods and misrepresentation. I have consistently taken the position when discussing the Olive Tree and the Vineyard that both did exist and did survive.

It is their existence and survival that discredits your description of what the Biblical Flood would be like and do.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 08-03-2016 3:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 115 of 242 (788722)
08-04-2016 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
08-03-2016 9:50 PM


There is no witness account of the flood.
Faith writes:

First I said "it's all a big fat piece of guess work" before I said that I have a witness account on my side. You go on to accuse me of having no witness account for the very things that are the GUESS WORK I was first talking about.

There is no witness account of the flood.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 08-03-2016 9:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 121 of 242 (788743)
08-04-2016 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
08-04-2016 10:06 AM


Yet one more thing we can say with certainty.
quote:
In the Bible the intermingling of why and how is evident, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. There the majestic statements of God's action, its value and the place of humanity in it, use an orderly and sequential statement of method. The why of the divine work is carried in a primitive description of how the work was done.

But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

From this evidence, internal to the very text of the Bible, we draw two conclusions.

First, God's revelation of purpose is the overarching constant. The creation is not accidental, aimless, devoid of feeling. Creation is the work of an orderly, purposeful Goodness. Beneath and around the cosmos are the everlasting arms. Touching the cosmos at every point of its advance, in depth and height, is a sovereign beauty and tenderness. Humanity is brooded over by an invincible Love that values the whole of the world as very good; that is the first deduction: God is constant.

Second, creation itself and the human factors are inconstant. Creation moves and changes. Human understanding moves and changes. Evolution as a contemporary description of the how of creation is anticipated in its newness by the very fluidity of the biblical text by the Bible's use of two distinct statements of human comprehension at the time of writing. As a theoretical deduction from the most careful and massive observation of the creation, the layers and deposits and undulations of this ever­changing old earth, evolution is itself a fluid perception. It raises as many questions as it answers. Evolution represents the best formulation of the knowledge that creation has disclosed to us, but it is the latest word from science, not the last.

If the world is not God's, the most eloquent or belligerent arguments will not make it so. If it is God's world, and this is the first declaration of our creed, then faith has no fear of anything the world itself reveals to the searching eye of science.

Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a six­day week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were. Historic creedal Christianity joyfully insists on God as sovereign and frees the human spirit to trust and seek that sovereignty in a world full of surprises.


From the Pastoral letter of The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta

Faith writes:

I didn't say you had to endorse YEC, I wondered how a Christian can simply do away with actual Biblical text.

It is not a matter of doing away with actual Biblical text but rather honestly acknowledging the actual Biblical text and admitting that the Biblical text is often contradictory, factually wrong and simply the product of human imagination as clearly shown in the quotation above.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 10:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 11:28 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 123 of 242 (788752)
08-04-2016 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
08-04-2016 11:28 AM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say with certainty.
Faith writes:

jar quote taken out of context writes:

It is not a matter of doing away with actual Biblical text

It helps to read in context and not answer something else. I was addressing NoNukes who actively dismissed actual Biblical text.

I agree, we should keep things in context and not quote mine. My full quote was:

It is not a matter of doing away with actual Biblical text but rather honestly acknowledging the actual Biblical text and admitting that the Biblical text is often contradictory, factually wrong and simply the product of human imagination as clearly shown in the quotation above.

When the Biblical text is factually wrong we need to make sure we do dismiss it as fact beyond the fact that that is what the story said.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 11:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 126 of 242 (788767)
08-04-2016 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
08-04-2016 12:50 PM


the past leaves evidence.
Faith writes:

The point is you can never have the SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY about the past that you have in the hard sciences. I

Again Faith, reality shows that is simply another false statement. Of course we can have exactly the same scientific certainty about past events and we arrive at that level of certainty using the exact same hard sciences.

We can be as certain about the landscape and topography and biology and chemistry and physics and cultures of long ago as we are of those in existence today. When we find the impression of a fossil leaf in stone we can tell the type tree, the average temperature, the location of the tree that dropped the leaf with the same degree of accuracy we can when we find a leaf on the ground today.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 12:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 138 of 242 (788908)
08-07-2016 9:56 AM


so returning to the points raised in the OP...
I'd like to try to return to the points raised in the Opening Post.

quote:
First, the two stories give us beginning criteria; rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Water from the rainfall and from unspecified "fountains of the deep".

All the water recedes over about 12 months until fertile land is again exposed.

So based on those assertions from the stories and considering reality, physics and geography we can make a few basic conclusions.

The water that fell as rain had to come from water already in the seas so there would be a net rise of water level from rain of zero.

The water from the "fountain of the deep" would result in two effects; local land subsidence at the source of the fountains extending across the area above that aquifer; and local flooding around the fountains.

Water taken from aquifers would have a long recharge time and so the water from the "fountains of the deep" would remain as surface water for longer than the time between the supposed flood and today.

The land that subsided over the source aquifers would still be at the level of the initial subsidence and most likely show up today as lakes immediately over aquifers and that that did not exist over 4000-4500 years ago.

While loose materials would be washed down hill to be deposited at lower levels there would be almost no additional noticeable wear to any lithified rocks. The floods total duration is simply too short to cause any appreciable erosion to anything but loose materials and extremely soft surfaces.

What would get deposited during the recessional event would be a jumbled mass of mostly unsorted materials with the only identifiable sorting being most dense items on the bottom graded to least dense items at the top.

There should be a uniform and universal interruption of existing cultures, biology, environment and ecology that shows a radiating pattern of return beginning somewhere near where the Ark of the stories was supposed to have ended up.

What the above are based on?

We can look at the current real evidence found in the world today to make conclusions based on current processes as well as geology, physics, chemistry, hydraulics, current annual events like monsoons and major annual flooding and land subsidence as we pump waters out of aquifers and wear to lithified materials seen in falls and from rainfall.

Those processes; getting water into the air to fall as rain, measuring erosion to lithified surfaces as found all over the world, measuring subsidence, measuring aquifer refill data, looking at the result of floods and tsunamis and annual inundations give us baseline studies that can then be used to make predictions given the conditions laid out in the stories.


Are there any objections to those characteristics?

Are any of those indicators that should be seen if a Biblical flood happened found in the real world?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 143 of 242 (788998)
08-09-2016 8:33 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.

I thought according to scientific information it had been that way at least three times in the past.

God Bless,

Learn to read. What Ringo and others have told you is that Genesis 1:9 does not say that the land was in one place.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ICANT, posted 08-09-2016 3:09 AM ICANT has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 178 of 242 (789324)
08-13-2016 8:57 AM


so maybe we can head back towards the topic
What would the Biblical Flood be like?

Based on what is written, what MUST be seen?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 182 of 242 (789433)
08-14-2016 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
08-14-2016 4:56 PM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
This is a science topic in a science forum and nonsense like the " The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years." and other mythology are totally irrelevant.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2016 4:56 PM ICANT has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 194 of 242 (789524)
08-16-2016 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by edge
08-16-2016 10:37 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
edge writes:

Does YEC do that? Does YEC test anything?

Yes, of course they do and almost 100% of the time devise tests that support prior conclusions.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:37 AM edge has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 211 of 242 (789912)
08-22-2016 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by ICANT
08-22-2016 1:36 AM


Re: Hi 14174Re: Science vs. creation "science"
ICANT writes:

The water was called seas.
The dry land mass was called earth.

quote:
Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

The dry land mass that made up the continental plates is what was divided.

God Bless,

Once again, you are simply misrepresenting what the Bible story says.

There is no mention of Continental plates or that any continental plates were divided.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2016 1:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2016 11:53 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 214 of 242 (789993)
08-23-2016 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
08-22-2016 11:53 PM


The Bible tells us nothing of value relating to science.
ICANT writes:

Science tells us how the division of the land mass was accomplished by the plates moving on the asthenosphere.

The Bible just says it was divided in the days of peleg.

God Bless,

Utter nonsense and the Bible tells us nothing of use and you simply pervert the Bible and Christianity when you make such utterly stupid claims or try to make the Bible sound like it contains science or knowledge of reality.

In the Creation Fable where the God Character calls the dry land earth we see only the ignorance of the author. While primitive man may well have considered dry land earth we know today that that is a simplistic, incomplete and inaccurate description.

When the fable says the earth was divided during the days of Peleg it again tells us nothing that is factual.

Today we know that Earth is a planet and earth is a word that has no particular meaning and that the continents were not divided at any time humans lived and that the various plates are far more under water and even under other plates than dry land.

Trying to use dogma, myth and mythos in a Science forum is just a total waste of time and your nonsense about Peleg is also totally irrelevant to the topic as well as useless in a science discussion.

Why must you always try to insert your personal fantasies into every thread?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2016 11:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2016 12:43 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 217 of 242 (790098)
08-25-2016 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by ICANT
08-25-2016 12:43 AM


Re: The Bible tells us nothing of value relating to science.
And the Bible still tells us nothing related to geological plates.

But geological plates are irrelevant to this topic anyway.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2016 12:43 AM ICANT has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 235 of 242 (790618)
09-01-2016 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
09-01-2016 7:10 PM


the topic
The Bible does not say there was ever a single land mass.

But the topic has to do with describing what the Biblical flood would be like.

Pangaea is of course irrelevant to ANYTHING related to one of the Biblical flood stories.

To try to get away from more of ICANTs nonsense, here is the OP again.

quote:
Faith on several occasions has asserted that no one can know what the Biblical Flood would have been like.

That seems to be a really silly assertion once again totally refuted by all the evidence, reason and reality; so I think it might be worthwhile to explore both why it is possible and what the evidence of such an event MUST be.

First, the two stories give us beginning criteria; rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Water from the rainfall and from unspecified "fountains of the deep".

All the water recedes over about 12 months until fertile land is again exposed.

So based on those assertions from the stories and considering reality, physics and geography we can make a few basic conclusions.

The water that fell as rain had to come from water already in the seas so there would be a net rise of water level from rain of zero.

The water from the "fountain of the deep" would result in two effects; local land subsidence at the source of the fountains extending across the area above that aquifer; and local flooding around the fountains.

Water taken from aquifers would have a long recharge time and so the water from the "fountains of the deep" would remain as surface water for longer than the time between the supposed flood and today.

The land that subsided over the source aquifers would still be at the level of the initial subsidence and most likely show up today as lakes immediately over aquifers and that that did not exist over 4000-4500 years ago.

While loose materials would be washed down hill to be deposited at lower levels there would be almost no additional noticeable wear to any lithified rocks. The floods total duration is simply too short to cause any appreciable erosion to anything but loose materials and extremely soft surfaces.

What would get deposited during the recessional event would be a jumbled mass of mostly unsorted materials with the only identifiable sorting being most dense items on the bottom graded to least dense items at the top.

There should be a uniform and universal interruption of existing cultures, biology, environment and ecology that shows a radiating pattern of return beginning somewhere near where the Ark of the stories was supposed to have ended up.

What the above are based on?

We can look at the current real evidence found in the world today to make conclusions based on current processes as well as geology, physics, chemistry, hydraulics, current annual events like monsoons and major annual flooding and land subsidence as we pump waters out of aquifers and wear to lithified materials seen in falls and from rainfall.

Those processes; getting water into the air to fall as rain, measuring erosion to lithified surfaces as found all over the world, measuring subsidence, measuring aquifer refill data, looking at the result of floods and tsunamis and annual inundations give us baseline studies that can then be used to make predictions given the conditions laid out in the stories.

Are there other things based on reality, physics, chemistry, geology and paleontology that should be seen?

Are there other things that must be seen if the Biblical Flood really happened?


Other than those items what should be seen if one of the Biblical flood stories actually happened?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 7:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022