|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That's totally unscriptural. ... the mountains grew up AFTER the Flood, one of the results of the tectonic activity that began AFTER the Flood and probably caused the draining of the Flood water too. Volcanoes also were the result of the tectonic movement and therefore so were the volcanic mountains."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
By that logic, Martians are perfectly consistent with scripture; they're not mentioned either. It's perfectly consistent with scripture, which says nothing about such things. But scripture does mention two sources of water for the Flood - rain and "fountains of the deep" - so it seems unlikely that a major event like mountain-building would be ignored. "Consistent with scripture" does not mean, "can be made up out of thin air and shoehorned into scripture"."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
It's a huge problem on both counts. The vast majority of evidence contradicts the Flood story. Even you have admitted more than once that there are things you can't explain. ... evidence that fits a whole Flood scenario and doesn't contradict scripture is not a problem. And your perverted "explanation" of the Flood ignores scripture almost entirely. You make it up as you go along without regard to what the scriptures actually say."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Making up stuff that isn't in scripture is just as bad as flat out contradicting scripture. Nothing I've said to try to explain the Flood contradicts scripture."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes: The Bible gives us only the bare bones of the Flood, in fact that's all it gives us of everything else tooe are expected to expand on it. That's all a sermon is, an expansion on something in the Bible.quote: "If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You certainly are. You are adding something that is not there, exactly what Proverbs warned against.
Yes it is possible to misrepresent God's word and be reproved for it. I'm not doing that... Faith writes:
I'm observing that you're mangling both the Bible and reality to try to match them both to the fantasy you've made up in your head. ... all you've been doing is complaining that I dare to think about how the Flood could have created what we actually see in reality that is not mentioned in the Bible..."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Sure you are. The tectonics are necessary for your explanation. The tectonics are not in the Bible. Therefore, your explanation is not biblical.
I am not adding TO THE BIBLE... Faith writes:
Yup.
If I'm "adding to the Bible" then so are all the preachers and theolgicans and apologists I mentioned. Faith writes:
Nope, it says adding to the words: Adding to the Bible means adding teachings you take to be on the level of scripture.quote:i.e adding to a story stuff that isn't there. "If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Adding it to the Bible violates the Bible. There is nothing about tectonic movement hat violates the Bible. Instant mountains also violate physics, by the way."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
How is that not adding to it?
I'm using the Bible as the launching pad. Faith writes:
That's certainly instant on a geological time scale.
And the mountains were not "instant," they rose over the following 4300 years... Faith writes:
That's where your problem arises. We know how fast the continents are moving and how fast the mountains are rising. There isn't near enough time in your scenario to make the mountains as big as they are now.
and may still be rising, the same way the continents have been moving over that same period and are still moving. Faith writes:
And you have never been able to suggest a mechanism either for how they could have zoomed so fast in the first place or for how the could decellerate so fast. It all started out fairly fast but has gradually slowed to the present tiny part of an inch per year."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
It's the "fast" part that's physically impossible. It might as well be instantaneous. It's been explained to you before the enormous amounts of energy that would have been required to move whole mountain ranges "fast". Where did that energy come from? And where did that energy go after the mountains had moved? Fast then slow, gradual, not sudden, not instantaneous. And what magic started that process and then stopped it? And why did it never happen again?"If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
But you don't explain. You didn't answer any of my questions. Sure you "explain" things to me that I take issue with and I explain things to you that account for the Flood. So?
Faith writes:
Sure we do. We know how much energy it takes and we know how much heat would be produced if all of that energy was in one place in a very short period of time.
You guys have no idea how fast is possible for building a mountain or separating the continents. Faith writes:
If you were actually explaining anything, YOU would have to specify what those mitigating factors are. And you don't know what mitigating factors are likely to be involved."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I didn't ask about force. I asked about energy. It's like me asking where the energy comes from to move a car and you saying the engine. I'm asking about the energy that goes into the engine to move the car.
What's your problem? It's the same force that split the continents. Faith writes:
So show your work. Calculate how much energy it would take to lift a mountain and how long it would take to dissipate to current levels.
It's been gradually dissipating for some 4300 years. Faith writes:
Not at all. We know how much a mountain weighs. We know how much energy it would take to lift it. There's no guesswork involved. The same calculations are used every day in a thousand different situations. No, you don't know what happened so your calculations can only be guesses."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Repeatable does not mean that the events are repeatable. We can not repeat the destruction of the World trade Center but we can be very sure that it did happen. REPEATABLE is another important concept. The prehistoric geological past is about ONE TIME events, Unwitnessed in any sense of that word, and UNREPEATABLE. What is repeatable is the observations of the existing evidence. Fifty scientists with different backgrounds can observe the wreckage of the WTC and agree on how it got into that state. Similarly, fifty scientists with different backgrounds can look at the rocks and agree on how they get into that state."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Even in the story, there was a maximum of eight witnesses and there is no corroborating evidence that those witnesses even existed. On the other hand, we have reports in writing from other civilizations - Egypt, India, China - that indicate that no worldwide flood happened. If you're going to accept witness evidence, you have to accept all of it.
I also listed "witnesses" referring to events that have been seen by many or reported in writing, which certainly describes the WTC event. Faith writes:
And my point was that that is NOT what repeatable means. The geology can certainly be tested today. My point is that the geological phenomena that are PREHISTORIC, meaning without any sort of witness evidence, and ONE-TIME events, meaning unrepeatable, are not testable science...."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You certainly did. You mentioned "witnesses".
I did not mention the people on the ark.... Faith writes:
As I have said more than once, it is not the event that must be repeatable; it's the observations. We do not repeat a murder to solve the mystery. But different people at different times must be able to repeat the observations of the evidence. ... and a one time event is pretty much the definition of nonrepeatability."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024