The bible literalists would say that a flood referred to as covering all the world meant a flood covering the entire surface of the planet simultaneously, rather than just the part of the world the storytellers knew.
Why are the Bible writers taken for such iidiots? Of course they knew their own experience didn't define the world, and the Bible itself makes that clear. If the earliest writers were that limited certainly the later writers weren't and they wouldn't put up with the earlier accounts if they knew them to be false. But they treated them as God's own revelation. They knew there was a worldwide Flood, Peter described a worldwide Flood.
But the bible is clearly not to be taken literally (There obviously were rainbows before the time of Noah, for example).
Well, being a Bible literalist myself, though that term is not really accurate as some ppeople misuse it, but anyway since I take the Bible as a revelation of the truth about everything, I know there were no rainbows before the Flood because it didn't rain before the Flood.
A citation for lithification not needing thousands of years? You need a citation showing that it does rather than that it's just the usual assumption of ppeople who are guessing as usual. But hey if I find a lab experiment that makes my point I'll post it for you.
You really thlnk ppeople are iidiots don't you, ppeople who lived before the modern era for sure, which is really just a form of cultureboundness. All those iddiots just made thlngs up, they had no sense of reality, didn't care about facts. Hm. Just the way you all put yourselves above us peole who believe in God.
The Earth before the Flood was watered by a mist from the ground according to scripture. That changed after the Flood. There had to have been a huge blanket of vapor over the earth too for rain to be possible when it did come. I've never been sure what "the fountains of the deep" refers to, or "the windows of heaven" that were opened to allow the rain, but something dramatic happened that permanently changed the climate of the Earth.
Well, all those pagan demon gods were quite real though placating them with offerings didn't do much in the way of protection. They still exist in places like India too, wherever Christianity hasn't had much influence.
If God hadn't given us His revelation we'd really be in bad shape.
All I know is that things were different before the Flood, and how exactly doesn't matter to me. I don't know what a lot of the terminology means. But whatever it means it's God's revelation and the later Bible writers believed that and treated it all as God's truth, including Jesus. The Flood changed the climate, people lived much much longer before than after and so on.
On the contrary, without religion we'd be in better shape. Good ****** do good things, bad ****** do bad things, but in order to persuade good ****** to do bad things you need religion or some other ideology that brings in enthusiastic fanatics.
Let me remind you of the context in which I said what I said. You had said:
Otherwise you'd be offering up offerings to placate Hephaestus every time you were worried about a volcano.
To which I replied something to the effect that all those pagan gods were real and did torment humanity (and in some places still do)...which led me to the next thoght that if God hadn't given us His revelation we would be in bad shape.
THAT IS, we would still be "offering up offerings to placate Hephaestus" or whatever demon god ruled over our tribe. The revelation of the God of the Bible isn't just a "religion," it's the most important body of truth humanity ever received. We would never have had western civilization or any of the great civil rights insights and laws that it produced both in Europe and the US. There's nothing primitive about it if you understand it. And now it is being ******* as if it were just one of those demonic pagan religions it overthrew, as if it were the cause of all the ills in the world that it went such a great distance toward correcting. Now the demonic hordes are rising up to destroy it. Of course. It supplanted them. It improved the state of humanity that they preferred to keep under their own tyranny.
So that's what I said or had in mind anyway. You'll disagree of course. But that's what I said/meant.
I'll go with Ayn Rand: no mystics of spirit, no mystics of muscle.
Oh, an Ayn Rand fan. We had another fan of hers here up until some time ago when he just disappeared and I've wondered what happened, hope he's OK. Coyote. I miss him-- he was friendly to me most of the time although he was certainly opposed to my creationism. In many ways he was a conservative, as you seem to be too, at least on the subjects of abortion and borders?
She despised religion, so did Coyote, so do you. If her influence on a person comes from her novels I must admit I don't get it: I couldn't stand her novels. Wooden characters, contrived plot, and just didn't interest me at all so her philosophy didn't get across to me either.
I don't get the reference to mystics, or maybe I sort of do but it's â€¦ oblique? to the topic.
Sorry, I forgot about this post, but since I said I'd come back to it I'll try to answer it.
If you can't see why it's aabsurd I can't explain it to you.
No. Not allowed. Data, facts, reasoning. Required.
Well, what I said is going to end up being true, either you get how it's aabsurd or you don't, so that asking me to defend the idea is just going to bring all Eevo Hell down on my head, but I'll make an effort to do the EvC thing, futile though I know it will be. And yes I know there will be a chorus of wounded science-minded ppeople who will respond about how how wrong I am and how innsulting I'm being, and how the resonse I get is my own fault because i'm not meeting the requirements and so on and so forth, as well as a chorus of denunciations if I object to that chorus along with a denial that anything I'm saying about that or anything else could possibly be true although it patently is; in any case as usual it's all my own fault.
But hey, this is my destiny and I'm coming to accept it at least for now. The Buddhist frame of reference is interesting as I've been following it recently: it's my karma and I can see that concept in both a Buddhist way and a Christian way. And I certainly hope that even at my age if I follow the buddhist methods, which are remarkably like Christian methods though perhaps easier to identify and for that reason maybe easier to follow, I can change my karma before I die. What a relief that would be.
Obviously I'm not eager to get into the subject of this post. Sigh.
And here comes the tidal wave of denunciations.
And I probably won't do a very good job of saying why the standard interpretation of the geological column is aabsurd either.
It's aabsurd just to look at it. Which can be seen most clearly in the Grand Canyon which exposes the whole column from the Great Unconformity, or at least the Tapeats sandstone, through the Permian time period or Kaibab limestone.
There it is: the idea that time periods (Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Eonian, etc) get expressed in the physical form of discreet separate layers of lithified sediments, often very specific sediments such as sandstone or limestone or shale and so on, that's what's aabsurd.
This linking of the time periods with the sedimentary rocks of the geological column is so completely and uncritically accepted (yes it is), so taken for granted, and so intimately connected to the Fossil Record which is a sacred tenet of the Theory of Evolution, if it is seriously questioned the whole edifice will not only be shaken but will probably collapse. This edifice which is apparently so necessary to the wellbeing of everybody at EvC at the very least. Which is why it can't be questioned and why simply suggesting it will be met with lengthy discourses on all the OTHER "scientific reasons" for the validity of the fossil record and the ToE which I encounter all the time from RAZD and PaulK and JonF in particular. while totally dismissing as well as denouncing the point I'm making here.
Yes I know I'm still evading the subject. But in a way I've already answered it and I've answered it a million times before anyway.
OK I've already worn myself out with this. Sorry, I do intend to come back and finish it but the very anticipations I'm describing plus the very length of it so far have done me in. Back soon I hope.
If I weren't trying so hard to practice spiritual principles I'd want to strange you all. Well I DO want to strangle you all. But I know it wouldn't accomplish anything and would just hurt me so hooray hooray I don't even have to THlNK that's what I want to do.
Actually it's because you all so aggressively always insist on misrepresenting me just as you are doing now.
I'm pretty sure you know that, you just continue to delight in aggressively misrepresenting me, so perhaps instead of telling you why I want to strangle you I should have asked if you KNOW why I want to strangle you --according to ME and not according to YOU. I wonder what you would have said. I thlnk you'd probably just have repeated your own opinion. Or MAYBE you'd have said something close to my reason why but then you'd immediately take it back and repeat your misrepresentation about how I'm just so unfair because I want to strangle you because you aren't convinced by my nonnsense and are willing to say so. (which of course DOESN'T "say a lot" about me at all, which is more reason why I want to strangle you, but really does say a lot about you.)
But again this is just my karma, which of course I deserve, and again although I wish I had a solution I don't but maybe I will eventually.