|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Jedothek | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Some water measurements for the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member  Posts: 32638 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I'd say it's a fair educated guess that when two lone guys claim there's a fault in the translation of the Bible, against a few millennia of opinion to the contrary, against all the translators down the centuries who were immersed in the Biblical languages from childhood, and against the general opinion of the whole Christian community today, and when you like their opinion because it helps you justify your belief in the Old Earth which a lot of us consider to be an out and out contradiction of the Bible, well, it's not a great leap to conclude they are most likely wrong.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
herebedragons Member  Posts: 1513 From: Michigan Joined:
|
quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain a light rainfall is less than .098 inches per hour. Let's use .05" per hour, which is a very, very light rain, - really more of a drizzle. This equals 48" of rain over a 40 day period. (.05 * 24 * 40) or 4 feet of rain total. plugging this number into JonF's spreadsheet from Message 203 we get that the temperature at the surface of the earth after precipitation of this amount of water is: **** And the initial temperature needed to maintain that volume of vapor is: **** Hmmm? natural processes? HBD ABE: I am currently disputing these calculations for initial temperature (see Message 261), so I have removed them from this post. However, the increase in temperature that would be required of that amount of precipitation seems correct which would be an increase of 316oF. Quite significant! Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given. Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given. Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given. Edited by herebedragons, : corrected "change in temperature" value in deg F 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
herebedragons Member Posts: 1513 From: Michigan Joined: |
Of course, the "Christian community" is only those who are YEC. Those with other opinions are outside the Christian community.
I want to know the truth. If the truth is that the earth is young, I'll go with that. It doesn't seem to be the case. I don't need to justify any belief, I need to understand reality. I didn't start out with the belief that the earth is old, so no need to look for a way to justify it. You are the one trying to justify your beliefs by coming up with wacky notions about vapor canopies and sedimentation that defies physics, ect, ect.
Of course not, all those who disagree ... If you at all cared about the truth, you would find that they talk nothing about the age of the earth in that book, other than to mention that it is a controversy in our churches today. Their premise is to look at the story of Genesis 1 in the context of how the original author and the original audience would have understood it. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member Posts: 32638 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
It's an attempt to preserve the word of God as the word of God against the tide of false science that causes so many people to lose faith in it. That's the only "particular position" involved. And the word of God IS the Truth. All the finagling to change the translation and read millions of years into the text and all the other shenanigans are also ways to try to preserve the text against the general assault, but by altering God's word rather than defending it, and I think a great deal of Creation Science does a pretty good job.
Yes, that's how most people are YECs. It's a very vulnerable position to be in because all you have is what you've been told. I started out knowing zip about any of it, became a Christian in the late 80s, started reading Creation Science in the early 90s, so I got it all fresh you could say and was convinced by it -- was convinced by the general enterprise at least and a lot of the specifics.
Pardon me if I say that if you were convinced by the stuff at EvC you are a pushover.
This is a very typical very sad story. And yet it's all based on an illusion of science and not on science. Maybe I will try to put together a thread on the scientific method as I suggested, not that I think I know enough to do the best job or that I'd even be particularly good at it, but just because I'm the only one here with the passion for it. It infuriates me that this bogus science of the past has the power to convince people away from the Bible when it's nothing but a huge flimflam deception house of cards fantasy. Biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the human race.
Despite all the accusations against me here I think science is great stuff. REAL science.
He must have been very impressive. But he also has to have retranslated or otherwise changed Genesis to accommodate some of his views of science, yes?
Of course such a paragraph is nothing but a statement of your opinion, the impact it had on you, and I haven't read Sarfati. Yours is a typical opinion one encounters all the time.
Excuse me but I BELIEVE what I say whether you do or not. My guess about what happened to you was that you were persuaded by the usual presentations of historical science that use all the right terminology and sound good but are not really sound.
That's fine. Your story is interesting. I didn't think of you as lying though, although you apparently don't extend the same grace to me. I just think you are wrong, got persuaded to an illusion of science.
The arguments used against it are just the usual stuff, and I haven't spent time on the idea, it just came up in this thread, so don't talk about how I'm "clinging" to anything. I'm just sick of the delusions that pass for science and are forced on people here. All those calculations about what WOULD have happened with a vapor canopy cannot be anything but conjecture, no consideration of any possibly mitigating circumstance. The first idea is enough for these guys. It's all mere conjecture and it's used to topple anything any YEC proposes, mere conjecture because those things cannot be KNOWN, and I'm sick of being called names because I don't give in to the vaporings (pardon the pun) of kneejerk Bible debunkers. I don't care what the vapor canopy was or if it's the right word for whatever existed, but something existed and the idea is NOT stupid and has NOT been proved untenable on the basis of a few pseudoscientific musings. Sorry.
I haven't deviated from anything.
I haven't questioned your motives, but to accomplish your aims leads you to discredit the Bible and that's what I object to.
That's ridiculous. It's very clear that to hold the position you hold requires twisting the Bible in one way or another. You may be doing that "sincerely" but from my point of view this is not just another way of looking at reality, this is attacking God's truth. I don't care about vapor canopy, I just resent the way all YEC ideas are treated as stupid based on nothing but flimsy kneejerk half-baked biased pseudoscience, which you seem to be supporting.
I have never in my life argued a word for the vapor canopy until this thread and in this case I got pushed into it by the stupid anti-YEC arguments, so I think YOU need to get a lot clearer about what *I* am saying before you pass judgment as you are doing.
I think you need to turn that criticism on yourself. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member Posts: 32638 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
The whole Christian community is just about everybody besides those two guys as far as I know, it's got nothing to do with YEC. But yes of course I object to rewriting the Bible especially when it IS based on an agenda determined by a worldly viewpoint which is what the false sciences of the past are.
I'm not disputing that but you ARE attracted to their argument because it supports the Old Earth which you ARE committed to now.
Except that now you are so committed to it you ARE attracted to such arguments as this book offers for that reason.
' Yeah I keep hearing how I'm defying physics, so far it hits me as just another crazy off the wall accusation so I ignore it.
I made my case. Their position is awfully flimsy.
'But why? You are clearly interested in it because of how it justifies your position ON THIS THREAD which is about the Old Earth whether they argue that directly or not. Or at least because of how they attack the underpinnings of YEC. They are JUST TWO GUYS, HBD, against the entire history of Bible scholarship and translation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
herebedragons Member Posts: 1513 From: Michigan Joined: |
I am not sure how to remedy this. I think it may involve a more complex calculation. Wikipedia says that quote: So perhaps after saturation reaches 4.24%@30oC (maximum saturation at 1 atm) , the temperature will need to increase significantly in order to force more water vapor into the atmosphere. I am not really sure. Maybe another thing to figure would be if the atmosphere was completely saturated with water (ie 4.24%) what would the total volume be and how deep would it cover the surface. Also quote: Which would be about .36 feet in 40 days. It could certainly rain at that rate with out the temperature being significantly different. The calculation for increase in temperature after condensation seems right, though, and that alone should be enough to show that raining 60 feet of water is untenable. HBD ABE: actually I found another error in the calculation of the conversion from change in temp oC to change in temp in oF. For every 1 degree change in oC, oF changes by 1.8 degrees. What you have to do is convert BEFORE subtracting. So for example, a change from 1oC to 0oC would be a change from 33.8oF to 32oF, a change of 1.8o. Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sure, in the sense that they are not talking about something like this:
But the Bible clearly says that there is a solid dome up in the sky that is holding the upper waters, and that there are some kind of openings in it, that the Lord can control, that can let through water and other things. Or do you think the firmament is a metaphor as well? What would it be a metaphor for? Its solid, or firm, and it has holes in it that let water and mana through. What could that possibly be a metaphor for?
Yeah, but this isn't just a random rainy day. God was upset with his creation and he wanted to wipe it out with a flood, so he caused it to rain for that specific purpose. It has to be because of God's will, otherwise it would just be a coincidence that it happened to start raining right when God wanted to flood the world. You tried to make up some stuff about sin causing the rain, or something, but that just doesn't fit. God was mad, and he caused it to rain, himself. He did it on purpose to destroy his creation. That is a miracle, by definition.
Okay, lets look at those exceptions and see what they are talking about. What are the verses?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member Posts: 32638 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
The dome-like APPEARANCE of the heavens or sky from earth I would assume. I just took a look through three commentaries at Blue Letter Bible and all of them refer to the firmament as just another word for the heavens or sky, one calling it "poetic."
No, but it's extraordinary because it's the first rain ever and the first time the "windows of heaven" and the "fountains of the deep" were released, but otherwise God didn't DO all that in any unusual way, it's the way He always works in events.
Right and He caused the Babylonians to attack Israel for the specific purpose of punishing them too.
But that is how all things happen that God causes in the normal course of things. God causes EVERYTHING, as I keep saying, and they all happen "right when" they are supposed to happen whether we have any clue to that fact or not.
Not if God also says He causes calamity in a city, causes an enemy to come against Israel, causes a great nation to come of the descendants of Abraham and so on. That makes the Flood a normal event in the way God works. ABE: But of course it's ALL about sin. No sin no Flood. No sin no Babylonian or Assyrian invasion. No sin no calamity in a city. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
No, the Bible clearly states that there is a dome in the sky that is solid and firm. If it wasn't solid, then how does it hold the up the upper waters in the sky? And why would it need holes in it for the water to pour through if it wasn't solid? We can even see in Job 37:18: quote: The Bible tells us that there is a solid dome in the sky, that has holes in it, and has water above it.
That's debatable. In Gen 2:6: quote: Mist coming up from the earth and then watering the ground sounds just like water evaporating and precipitating, which is rain.
The fact that God did DO it is one of the things that makes it a miracle.
The Babylonians have free will. I agree that God "pushing" them to do something is not really miraculous like when he does something directly himself. Which is what he did with the flood. See Gen 6:17 quote: The Lord himself, even himself, brought the waters upon the earth.
There's a difference between God being the cause of everything, and God actually doing something himself. With the Flood, he himself brought the water for his purpose specifically. That's different than how regular things happen on their own but God is behind them.
Why not?
How so?
I guess, but the sin did not cause the Flood. quote: God was upset that his creation grew wicked and he wanted to restart it. That's why he flooded the world. He did it, himself. It wasn't just some natural occurrence that was the result of sin. It was the Lord's doing. That it was a result of the direct action of God, himself, something that he specifically did for his purpose, makes it a miracle. Its different that how "god is behind everything" because in this case he is the specific, immediate, and direct cause of the event. As they say, it was "By the Hand of God", that is a miracle by definition.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tangle Member  Posts: 7003 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
It's a pretty impressive delusion. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member Posts: 32638 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tangle Member Posts: 7003 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
You're the little girl walking in the Sunday church parade; everyone is out of step except you. All the spectators can see it, people are shouting for you to get into step, but you know that you're right and everyone else needs to change, not you. Good luck with that. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member Posts: 32638 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tangle Member Posts: 7003 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
I competely understand your need to believe that. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adminnemooseus Director  Posts: 3892 Joined: |
Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Didn't think hard enough about toggling ID. Or something like that©.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
(1)
