Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
139 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 132 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,254 Year: 4,366/6,534 Month: 580/900 Week: 104/182 Day: 11/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 123 of 1352 (804493)
04-10-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Davidjay
04-09-2017 1:00 AM


Re: .. Great Pyramid
DavidJay writes:


So how many days are there in a week 7

How many 1,000 year periods are there according to the Great Math Book ? 7

How many have to pass before the Lord returns ... 6 and sets up His RULE of 1,000 years.


So do you think that the Lord's 1000 year rule started in 1997?!? (Not 1996; there is no year zero.)

DavidJay writes:


Jesus was born in 4 BC, four thousand years after Creation, when He started Creation.... exactly. Amazing HUH, OK coincidence if you have a weak mind but the coincidences keep adding up, over and over and over again, until it gets into your head that it isnt coincidence, it has to be TIME DESIGN...


Not amazing at all. Before Bishop Ussher, lots of people had tried to calculate the date of creation, all with different results. But Bishop Ussher believed (as you do) that the 7 days of creation were symbolic for 7 millennia. So he "rigged" his calculations to come up with 4004 BC, exactly 4000 years before Jesus' birth.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Davidjay, posted 04-09-2017 1:00 AM Davidjay has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2017 1:51 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(5)
Message 302 of 1352 (805648)
04-19-2017 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
04-19-2017 1:30 PM


Re: the idea of more than one biblical flood is what's silly, AND the date of course
Faith writes:


The Bible doesn't say much at all to allow us to conclude just how quiet it was or wasn't. We have a lot of leeway for speculating based on our own experience of the physical world how the little it says fits with observations of the condition of the earth.


As you note, the Bible gives very few details of the effects of Noah's Flood. There is no mention of rock strata laid down, canyons carved, etc.

In short, none of modern "Flood Geology" is biblical; it is all extra-biblical speculation.

The "Young earth" view goes back to antiquity, but "flood geology" does not. "Flood geology" only dates back a century or so, to George McReady Price, a non-geologist who invented it to support Ellen G. White. (See "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers for more historical details on this.)

Besides being unbiblical, "Flood geology" is opposed by most Christian professional geologists. See, for example the Affiliation of Christian Geologists and Solid Rock Lectures.

I seriously considered Flood Geology views when I was younger. But when I took up spelunking as a hobby in high school and college, I realized that Flood Geology simply made no sense and was not credible. A single flood would have had to lay down hundreds to thousands of feet of limestone, then allow it to harden, then carve cave channels into it, then allow the water to drain, then form stalactites and stalagmites in an accelerated manner (they have layers, similar to tree rings). All of this within one year, due to a single flood?!? It's a ridiculous scenario!


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 1:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 7:04 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 7:26 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 307 of 1352 (805655)
04-20-2017 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
04-19-2017 7:04 PM


Re: the idea of more than one biblical flood is what's silly, AND the date of course
Faith writes:

I can hardly believe anyone could look at the strata and not KNOW that millions of years of living things in some stage of evolution is an utterly STUPID interpretation of a slab of rock, but that a worldwide Flood explains it to perfection.


God's ways are often counter-intuitive. This is true in His dealings with man, His way of salvation, and in the way He operates His creation. When we think we just KNOW something by intuition rather than by careful study, we need to catch ourselves and force ourselves to do a careful study of the matter.

"Flood Geology" seems intuitively reasonable at first glance. But when one starts to study the details, it quickly collapses.

Regarding the Grand Canyon, I highly recommend the recent book, The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?. A number of the authors are friends of mine, involved in either the Affiliation of Christian Geologists or in Solid Rock Lectures.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 7:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:09 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(3)
Message 322 of 1352 (805744)
04-20-2017 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
04-20-2017 3:09 AM


Re: the idea of more than one biblical flood is what's silly, AND the date of course
Faith writes:

What's intuitive and unwarranted is your throwing out the whole Flood explanation based on your ridiculous impression of how long it would take to form limestone caves, acquired from spelunking. You come along with that ignorant idea and lay it on me as if it gives you some sort of scientific authority over Flood creationists.


I raised spelunking just as a simple anecdote that others could possibly relate to. My objections to "flood geology" are much deeper and evidence-based. They are in part based on a college geology course that I took at a leading Christian college, in part due to graduate and post-doctoral work in radioisotope dating, and in part due to discussions with numerous friends who are Christian professional geologists.

Here are two facts to consider:
1) "Flood geology" advocates are in the minority, even among Evangelical Christian geologists.
2) "Flood geology" is an extra-biblical recent invention, only about 100 years old.

Even if you are convinced of YEC, it is very dangerous to hitch your wagon to "flood geology". Numerous extra-biblical quasi-scientific YEC arguments have been abandoned over the years (see lists from CMI and AIG); hopefully "flood geology" will eventually join them.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 1:59 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 341 of 1352 (805792)
04-20-2017 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Faith
04-20-2017 1:59 PM


Re: the idea of more than one biblical flood is what's silly, AND the date of course
Faith writes:

Could not care less about such incidentals. You have said absolutely nothing, not one thing, zip, about any of my actual arguments.


I have not seen you present any scientific arguments for a recent global Flood in this thread. All I've seen are some general observations that, in your opinion, seem to make sense in a global Flood context.

If you are interested in actual arguments, I've given you a number of links to Christian professional geologists who debunk "flood geology" arguments and claims.

Faith writes:

In case you haven't noticed, I don't normally talk "flood geology." That is something you are imposing on me. I argue from my own observations about how the Flood would have caused certain effects. As long as you are talking in generalities, arguing from authority, and ignoring all the arguments I've made, I consider your remarks on this subject to be irrelevant and insulting.


You certainly have the personal freedom to reject the authority of experts in the field, to reject scientific data, to reject history, and to add extra-biblical teachings such as "flood geology" to Scripture. But I don't recommend it.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 1:59 PM Faith has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 351 of 1352 (805835)
04-21-2017 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Coyote
04-20-2017 10:43 PM


Re: Twelve continuously occupied cities
And the Greenland ice core goes back 100,000 years, with no evidence of a large missing section due to melting from a flood, and no abrupt discontinuity. This is evidence that NO flood covered Greenland in the last 100,000 years.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2017 10:43 PM Coyote has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:07 AM kbertsche has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 400 of 1352 (805933)
04-21-2017 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
04-21-2017 1:31 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
Faith writes:

Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims. I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.


But Faith, you are conflating the text with the YEC interpretation of the text. Even if the text is divinely inspired and inerrant, human interpretations are not. Gen 1-11 is especially difficult to interpret, because the accounts are very condensed and include a significant amount of imagery (starting with chapter 12, the accounts slow down and become much more detailed).

One fundamental question: when the author says that the Flood covered "the whole earth" or "all the earth", what did he mean? Is this "all" from God's perspective, or from the narrator's perspective? If the latter, the author was likely referring to "all" of the known earth, not the entire globe (just as when Paul said that the gospel had spread to all the earth; he meant all of the known earth, I.e. all of the Roman Empire).


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 8:14 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 405 of 1352 (805954)
04-21-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Taq
04-21-2017 3:49 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
Taq writes:

The bible being God's word and the truth is the claim, not the evidence. Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?


The same thing can be treated as both a claim and as evidence, however. For example, we normally take radiocarbon dates as evidence of actual age. But the radiocarbon date could also be viewed as a claim that is dependent on the sample not being contaminated, the laboratory measurements being done correctly, etc. Once we are convinced that the dating was done correctly, we treat it as evidence on which to rest more claims.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Taq, posted 04-21-2017 3:49 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022