Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9079 total)
107 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 105 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,332 Year: 6,444/6,534 Month: 637/650 Week: 175/232 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 93 of 242 (788659)
08-03-2016 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
08-03-2016 11:06 AM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
What I pitied him for was believing in the Old Earth, not for the order of the fossils.

And the rest of your post is the usual "reversal of the truth."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2016 11:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2016 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 100 of 242 (788672)
08-03-2016 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by herebedragons
08-03-2016 1:21 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
You have denied that such features exist and have insisted that all (now maybe most) tectonic events occurred AFTER all sediments were laid down.

WHAT????? You are making NO sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2016 1:21 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 242 (788677)
08-03-2016 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoNukes
08-03-2016 2:39 PM


Jar is making up all his evidence, how the olive tree COULDN'T have survived, how there COULDN'T have been a vineyard. It's all some of the lore about how the plants grow, selectively chosen to discredit the Biblical account, just as I'm selecting different facts to counter his, that defend the Biblical account. It's nonsense that he's using scientific means and I'm not. Utter nonsense. It's ALL a big fat piece of guess work, only I have a witness account on my side and he has nothing but his own fallen mind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 101 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2016 2:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 08-03-2016 3:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 105 by Tangle, posted 08-03-2016 4:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2016 6:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 108 of 242 (788703)
08-03-2016 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
08-03-2016 4:24 PM


I'm not a seventh day adventist and I have no idea what E G White wrote about the Flood, absolutely none, so if I'm saying anything like what she said it didn't come from her and in fact most of it came out of my own head and not from anybody that I know of.

As for salty water, rain is not salty. In fact I just happened to see a film based on a true story about four guys stranded in an overturned trimaran on the ocean. After they ran out of water they came up with a system of diverting rainwater along the hull of the boat into a reservoir. Rainwater is obviously drinkable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2016 4:24 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2016 2:18 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 242 (788705)
08-03-2016 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by NoNukes
08-03-2016 6:09 PM


It's ALL a big fat piece of guess work, only I have a witness account on my side and he has nothing but his own fallen mind.

Nonsense. You have no witness accounts for a super genome. You made that up. You have no witness accounts for the idea that there is missing landscape evidence. You made that up

You are extremely talented at turning a reasonable statement into garbage. 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. You have a terrible time, just terrible, understanding a statement according to its own emphases. I don't know how you do it but you are amazingly consistent at it.

No point in trying to answer your whole garbage heap. But I do NOT postulate a "super genome" -- increased heterozygosity is cdompletely within the normal range of things. PAY ATTENTION. THINK FOR A CHANGE. Stop garbling everything I say. As for your incomprehensible statement "the idea that there is missing landscape evidence" is just that, incomprehensible, probably the usual garbling of something I said that I can't even recognize from your phrase. Go ahead and deny it all. You never stop to think that maybe I'm right about this mangling of communication you do even though I've said it many times by now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2016 6:09 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2016 1:27 AM Faith has replied
 Message 115 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 9:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 242 (788729)
08-04-2016 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by NoNukes
08-04-2016 6:37 AM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
I didn't say you had to endorse YEC, I wondered how a Christian can simply do away with actual Biblical text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2016 6:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 11:00 AM Faith has replied
 Message 149 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2016 6:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 118 of 242 (788732)
08-04-2016 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
08-04-2016 2:18 AM


Didn't mean to impute salty rain to you, should have been clear I was adding my own information about that.

To my mind the strata with their fossil contents are THE unimpeachable evidence of the Flood, for which no other explanation makes sense, certainly not millions of years of different time periods with completely different life forms.

All the details are attempts to imagine the hows of the matter.

Scripture DOES mention MOUNTAINS, though their height is a matter of speculation, and the splitting of the earth in the time of Peleg as a physical event is one interpretation held by some commentators but not others; some interpret it as a cultural splitting or some such. It's still a possibility in my mind but I think earlier timing right after the Flood makes more sense.

You don't know and I don't know so you can drop your tone of certainty.

I could not care less what Ellen G. White said about it.

Yes the scientists come up with six sea transgressions to explain how obviously WET the strata had to have been.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2016 2:18 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 119 of 242 (788734)
08-04-2016 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by NosyNed
08-04-2016 1:27 AM


Re: super genome
There is nothing that would challenge the structure of the genome in greater heterozygosity. Postulating a super genome with something like polyploidy would be an example of an abnormal solution to the problem, something that would change the structure of the genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2016 1:27 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 242 (788748)
08-04-2016 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by jar
08-04-2016 11:00 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 11:00 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 11:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 242 (788762)
08-04-2016 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by NoNukes
08-03-2016 6:09 PM


Just more straw man debunkery
You have no witness accounts for a super genome. You made that up.

Aside from the fact that I have no super genome at all, of course I've "made up" the attempts to explain how the few people and animals on the ark were able to populate the earth since then. Of COURSE I have no witness evidence for that. CAN YOU READ? I said most of this is necessarily guess work. I did NOT claim witness support for my guesses. CAN YOU READ?

You have no witness accounts for the idea that there is missing landscape evidence. You made that up.

I have NO idea what "missing landscape evidence" means. If I said something even remotely similar that you garbled I suppose I probably did "make it up" because AS I SAID, all we can do is GUESS, to which I added that I do have the advantage of a witness account, BUT NOT FOR THE THINGS I HAVE TO GUESS AT.

CAN YOU READ?

You do have a Biblical testimony that an olive leaf is available, but as for how that happened you don't have any witness as to how that occurred. You made your explanation up.

OF COURSE I DID. THAT IS THE NECESSARY WAY ONE HAS TO DEAL WITH THE UNWITNESSED POSSIBILITIES. AS I SAID. I DO NOT CLAIM WITNESS EVIDENCE FOR THE DETAILS THAT HAVE TO BE IMAGINED.

CAN YOU READ?

In one post you tell us that there is no explanation for the sorting of fossils. In another you tell us you have a working model for the flood. One of those statements is obviously false.

Oh nonsense. A working model for a worldwide FLOOD doesn't need to explain the order of the fossils. Why on earth would that be required of a FLOOD for pete's sake? Since conventional science makes a lot of the fossil order it would be nice to have a clear explanation, but not for any reason having to do with the way a Flood should be expected to behave. It sorts layers, it does some kind of sorting, but however it sorts wouldn't have anything to do with the evolutionary assumptions about the fossil order.

I think Jar has properly guessed that neither of those things is true.

My scenarios are quite consistent overall. Added together they amount to a model.

In one post you tell us that there is no way to obtain information regarding the unwitnessed past. Yet you devote an entire thread to telling us how you can use that same evidence to rule out a scientific explanation. Quite obviously one at least one, and almost certainly both of those statements are wrong. But not when you tell it.

Sigh.

The point is you can never have the SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY about the past that you have in the hard sciences. I've said this so often you should get it. Oh but I forget I'm talking to YOU, who always manages to get anything I say mangled beyond recognition. If I say something is red and it dominates another blue thing you'll turn that into the blue dominating the red. Anyway it's not about not being able to know ANYTHING AT ALL about the past, it's about how you can't have CERTAINTY about the past the way you can with the sciences whose discoveries are testable and replicable, as events in the past are not. I've often used the term "plausibility" to describe the degree of knowledge that is possible about the past, basically a persuasive interpretation, and I will certainly argue for the persuasiveness of my own interpretations of the past.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2016 6:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2016 1:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 126 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 1:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 2:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 242 (788783)
08-04-2016 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by NoNukes
08-04-2016 1:27 PM


Re: Just more straw man debunkery
You're wrong, NN but I'm leaving it at that. I'll even say I'm sorry for becoming intemperate about it. But you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2016 1:27 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2016 1:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 242 (788797)
08-04-2016 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ICANT
08-04-2016 5:31 PM


The water would be coming from all sides of the land mass at the same time. This would make the YEC model impossible.

Why?

I've noted that myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2016 5:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2016 1:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 242 (789134)
08-11-2016 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by JonF
08-11-2016 8:44 AM


ICANT NOT SAYING the Bay of Fundy could keep on rising
... what goes into the bay must shortly come out of the bay before any more goes into the bay. There cannot be a steady rise in the Bay of Fundy or any analogous situation.

I don't agree with much of ICANT's ideas about the Flood as far as I can tell so far, but this idea that he thought the tides in the Bay of Fundy could just go on rising is a complete misreading of what he said that really needs to be corrected. He was NOT suggesting that this could happen IN THE BAY OF FUNDY. He was simply using the Bay of Fundy as a model for the Flood in relation to the height of the tidal rise in a brief period of time (or something like that, he can correct me if I got this wrong), then adding the necessary difference that the Flood would not have receded after the tidal rise but kept on rising. NOT THE BAY OF FUNDY, THE FLOOD.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 8:44 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 11:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 767 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 242 (789160)
08-11-2016 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by JonF
08-11-2016 11:11 AM


Re: ICANT NOT SAYING the Bay of Fundy could keep on rising
If you want to argue "no correlation," fine, but you didn't, you implied he was stu*pid enough to think the water could go on rising after high tide in the Bay of Fundy, and so did some others here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 11:11 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 12:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022