Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
77 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, xongsmith (7 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,196 Year: 6,308/6,534 Month: 501/650 Week: 39/232 Day: 16/23 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 167 of 242 (789242)
08-12-2016 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Pressie
08-11-2016 8:20 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Pressie

Pressie writes:

Really? You think that it's an assumption? You really need a basic education.

Yes Really.

Meteorologist Alfred Wegener wrote, The Origin of Continents and Oceans in 1915. This was the beginning of the debate of plate tectonic's.

There was no one before that who made any notes about what the movement of the plates was.

So there can only be an assumption that they have always been the same.

If you disagree please explain your reasoning.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Pressie, posted 08-11-2016 8:20 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Pressie, posted 08-12-2016 8:56 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 08-12-2016 11:52 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 168 of 242 (789244)
08-12-2016 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by NoNukes
08-12-2016 1:50 AM


Hi NoNukwa

NoNukes writes:

The Bible says that there were high mountains at the time. Presumably Moses knew what a high mountain was when he wrote Genesis well after the time of the Flood or the "division of the earth" at Peleg, right? But of course you know better.

Moses did not translate the Hebrew into English and I doubt if he actually knew what the layout of the early earth was. He did know what it was like in his days but the single land mass had been divided in the days of Peleg which was at least 100 years after the flood.

The Hebrew word translated mountains is also translated hills.

NoNukes writes:

Whether the flood waters did or did not carve features such as the grand canyon due to the flow of the flood waters is neither confirmed or denied by the text. Both you and Faith are just guessing.

The Grand Canyon did not exist until at least 100 years after the flood, as the earth was not divided yet.

NoNukes writes:

The velocity is generated by the water rushing to fill in an area in which there was not water. It is not caused strictly by the water level rising in the ocean, but from a combination of water falling from the sky, and presumably rushing towards the sea, some water coming from the "fountains of the deep" which may or may not be on land or ocean, and the rising of the sea level from a combination of the two. That leaves plenty of opportunity to generate velocity.

How much the velocity could have been would be determined by the elevation and size of the land which is unknown. We only know what it looks like now anything else is an assumption on our part.

NoNukes writes:

All we know is that the water levels themselves rose gently. But of course you know better.

I don't understand this statement.

I am the one trying to explain that the rising water would do little damage. In fact long before Peleg was born there would have been no trace of the flood. But after the earth was divided in the days of Peleg there would have been no possible way of seeing any evidence of the flood. You could probably find places that there had been a flood in the past in many places but you would not be able to see a flood layer all over the earth.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2016 1:50 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2016 3:17 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2016 10:08 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 173 of 242 (789316)
08-13-2016 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by NoNukes
08-12-2016 3:17 AM


Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

1) I described my position in detail. In essence it is that a gentle rising of levels may cause extensive damage. I don't have anything more to add to it.

It did not seem like detail to me. It sounded more like an assertion.

You said the erosion would take place because of the water rushing to where there was no water. That is not much detail when you don't even know the shape of the land mass or the elevation of the land mass.

NoNukes writes:

But the Bible itself does not tell us that the rising water did little damage.

But it does. Genesis chapter 8 tells us that not long after it stopped raining that a dove was sent out from the ark and came back with an olive leaf.

It don't sound like much damage was done to the earth.
It wasn't long before Noah was farming.

So where is all the damage you were alluding too?

NoNukes writes:

Says ICANT, the authority on the pre Peleg geography

Sorry NoNukes I just believe the Bible.

NoNukes writes:

Was any of the landmass currently known as Africa a part of the initial landmass? How about the continent now known as North America. Was any part of that a portion of the initial landmass? How the heck would you even know that? You make up stuff just as freely as does Faith.

All I know is there was a dry land mass that was protruding out of the water that was gathered in one place.

How big it was or how high above sea level it was protruding there is no way of knowing.

Assumption
I would assume that all the continental plates were there is some form. How much of any of them that was protruding out of the water at the time of the flood is unknown.

So what are you ranting about that I have made up?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2016 3:17 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 174 of 242 (789317)
08-13-2016 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Pressie
08-12-2016 8:56 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Pressie

As to their existence there is no question.

But to believe they have always moved at the same rate of speed is an assumption. In fact there are plates moving at different speeds. Some at 1" per year and other at 3' to 4".


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Pressie, posted 08-12-2016 8:56 AM Pressie has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 175 of 242 (789318)
08-13-2016 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Coyote
08-12-2016 10:08 AM


Hi Coyote

Your 175 million years ago is based on your assumption that the plates have maintained the same rate of speed .

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2016 10:08 AM Coyote has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 176 of 242 (789319)
08-13-2016 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
08-12-2016 11:52 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

Nobody wrote about gravity before gravity was discovered. Yet it seems to be a reasonable assumption that gravity has always behaved in the same way.

Key word: REASONABLE ASSUMPTION

ringo writes:

Nobody wrote about gravity before gravity was discovered. Yet it seems to be a reasonable assumption that gravity has always behaved in the same way.

Key word: REASONABLE ASSUMPTION

So both were based on an assumption.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 08-12-2016 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2016 5:51 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 08-13-2016 11:50 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 180 of 242 (789428)
08-14-2016 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Coyote
08-13-2016 5:51 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Coyote

Coyote writes:

Also, you previously stated that scientific dating was wrong because "assumptions."

Refresh my memory of where I said that.

I did say I would disagree with your dating of the time that the land mass was in one place. Which would be due to the assumption that the plates have always moved at the same pace.

So you misread my statement and jumped to conclusions.

Coyote writes:

Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean the assumptions are wrong. You have to come up with some reason to support your conclusion that the assumptions are wrong.

I do not argue the age of the universe or earth as I believe it is older than you do. So forget all your YEC arguments.

But the reason the plates are moving at the speed they are today is because the earth was divided in the days of Peleg in a nano second. They just haven't come to a complete stop yet.

Coyote writes:

Perhaps its easier for you to just cry, "Assumptions!" than it is to actually show how they're wrong?

An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Just because you accept certain assumptions does not make them true.

My assumptions have just as much evidence as your assumptions.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2016 5:51 AM Coyote has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 181 of 242 (789429)
08-14-2016 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ringo
08-13-2016 11:50 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

REASONABLE assumption - i.e. an assumption based on reason.

An assumption is an assumption which is accepted as truth by those whose world view it fits.

ringo writes:

You have no reason to assume that the tectonic plates moves at a fundamentally different rate at some time in the past.

Sure I have reason to make my assumption. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years. But I believe it took place in a nano second or less. They just have not come to a complete stop yet, which is the reason different plates are moving at different rates.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 08-13-2016 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 08-14-2016 6:18 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 183 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2016 7:22 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 08-15-2016 11:48 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 186 of 242 (789511)
08-16-2016 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Pressie
08-15-2016 7:22 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Pressie

Pressie writes:

In the natural sciences there's scientific evidence for 'assumptions'.

Evidence creates facts not assumptions.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2016 7:22 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by JonF, posted 08-16-2016 8:11 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2016 9:54 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 192 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:30 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 187 of 242 (789512)
08-16-2016 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by ringo
08-15-2016 11:48 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

An assumption is based on the conclusion of another investigation.

Can you tell me where I can find that definition.

I can find several for the definition I gave.

ringo writes:

For example, we can "assume" that the sun will rise in the east because that's where we have always observed it rising.

That assumption is false.
The sun does not rise in the east.

The sun appears in the east due to the revolution of the earth on it's axis, in relation to the sun.

ringo writes:

Stonehenge was built on the basis of the assumption that celestial events will continue as they have been observed.

Stonehenge was built on the evidence that was observed not an assumption.

ringo writes:

That's not a "reason". It's an empty speculation.

Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.

Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today.

So the only problem is how quickly the land mass was divided.

How do we know when Pangea existed?

IF the plates have always moved at the same speed Pangea existed about 250 million years ago and began to break up about 150 million years ago.

The oldest data for the speed of the movement of the plates dates back to 1974.

Some plates are moving at higher rates than others.

Now just because the plates are moving at certain rates today does not mean they have always moved at those rates.

The steady movement for 150 million years is an assumption.

The plates could have been moved to their present location in a nano second and just have not come to a complete stop yet. This is an assumption.

ringo writes:

You are also wrong about what the Bible says.

Someone who believes the Bible is a myth telling me I am wrong about what the Bible says is hilarious.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 08-15-2016 11:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-16-2016 10:18 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 191 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:28 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 08-16-2016 11:52 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 196 of 242 (789616)
08-17-2016 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by edge
08-16-2016 10:28 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Edge

Edge writes:

However, it would still be an assumption that the sun will appear in the east each morning.

At the same time, it is a pretty well supported assumption.

But it does not appear at the same time each morning.

Edge writes:

Such a displacement is not even an assumption. It is a fantasy. There are no forces on earth that could do that except magic.

Who said anything about a force on earth.

The force that holds the universe together would have no problem moving them and it would not be magic. I think you would probably call that force dark energy or dark matter.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:28 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2016 7:34 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 197 of 242 (789620)
08-17-2016 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by ringo
08-16-2016 11:52 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

The Bible doesn't say that either. When the earth was divided in the time of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), it clearly refers to the division of nations (Genesis 10:32), which clearly refers to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).

quote:
Genesis
11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.


The Hebrew word פוץ is translated scattered and scatter in these verses, and means, scatter or disperse.

quote:
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

The Hebrew word פלג is used in this verse and translated divided. The definition is to divide or split.

ringo writes:

It has nothing to do with continental drift. The Bible didn't predict continental drift. Nobody thought of interpreting it that way until after continental drift was confirmed by science. You're trying to reverse-engineer agreement of the Bible with science.

Well I read Genesis in August 1949 and believed the same then as I do now. I believed God and accepted His free full pardon and turned my life over to Him.

I led a prayer meeting 2 months later and talked about God dividing the earth in the days of Peleg. So later in 1955 when I read about Pangea that confirmed by belief that land mass was in one place and God divided it in the days of Peleg.

With the two different Hebrew words used in Genesis 10:25 and then in Genesis 11:8, 9 there is no way the text in Genesis 10:25 can be translated as the nations or people being dispersed over the land mass.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 08-16-2016 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2016 7:30 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 200 by ringo, posted 08-17-2016 11:51 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 201 of 242 (789758)
08-19-2016 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by NoNukes
08-17-2016 7:30 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

Of course it can. The fact that two different words are used does not mean that the same meaning was not meant in both places.

quote:
Genesis 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The Hebrew word פוץ is translated scattered and scatter in these verses, and means, scatter or disperse.


quote:
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

The Hebrew word פלג is used in this verse and translated divided. The definition is to divide or split.


But the two Hebrew words do not mean the same thing. Did you even read my post?

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2016 7:30 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2016 9:33 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 208 by 14174dm, posted 08-19-2016 12:06 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 202 of 242 (789759)
08-19-2016 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by NoNukes
08-17-2016 7:34 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

The time of sunrise for any given day can be calculated decades in advance based on assumptions which have been verified by evidence.

What assumptions are you referring too?

The sun don't rise.

The earth rotates on it's axis taking 23 hours 56 minutes, and 4 seconds to make a complete rotation.

That is the reason the sun appears at different times.

That is the reason the appearance of the sun for any place on earth can be figured out for any date in the future.

No assumptions are required.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2016 7:34 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2016 3:55 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 203 of 242 (789762)
08-19-2016 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by ringo
08-17-2016 11:51 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

As I pointed out, Genesis 10:32 uses the same word "divided" and clearly associates the division with the families of the sons of Noah.

Your Hebrew needs a lot of work.

The Hebrew word פרד means separate. Genesis 10:32
The Hebrew word פלג means divided or split. Genesis 10:25

ringo writes:

It was the people who were divided, not the land.

The people were separated not divided or split.

ringo writes:

But even IF the Bible mentioned continental drift, it is NOT something that we would expect to be associated with the Flood.

Well the Bible don't mention continental drift. It just states that in the days (during his lifetime) of Peleg the earth was divided.

That would have been at least 100 years after the flood.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by ringo, posted 08-17-2016 11:51 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2016 3:58 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 207 by ringo, posted 08-19-2016 11:55 AM ICANT 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