More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby cathy » Tue May 01, 2012 5:36 pm

The Bible is evidence and a framework (paradigm) from which we can derive scientific hypothesis... These can be tested by the non biblical evidence (scientific, historical..)

And the non biblical evidence has long since falsified your paradigm. In fact if you get to the second page of the bible it falsifies the paradigm set up by the first by blatant contradictions in the order things were 'created' which all creationists repeatedly ignore. You keep forgetting to add that.

There is plenty of evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted (both Biblical and otherwise).
:shock: :shock: I am speechless. Where? What on Earth are you taking Marc?
cathy
 
Posts: 3263
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 01, 2012 7:12 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:"scientific models should be BASED on EVIDENCE and NOT on the BIBLE ... by all means then check whether any unfalsified models match the Bible...".

The Bible is evidence and a framework (paradigm) from which we can derive scientific hypothesis... These can be tested by the non biblical evidence (scientific, historical..)

a_haworthroberts wrote:I ALSO wrote: "Whether it's "they were all laid down in the flood 4,300 years' ago" or "they were all laid down after the flood of 4,300 years' ago" (as favoured by Marc I think). Neither of which is REMOTELY correct - for instance because NO dinosaurs whatsoever are known to have died within the last 4,300 years".

There is plenty of evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted (both Biblical and otherwise).



IF THE BIBLE WAS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WE WOULD KNOW IT. FROM SCIENCE.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 01, 2012 7:17 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:There is plenty of evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted (both Biblical and otherwise).


Dearie me, I forgot about that.

The peer reviewed scientific literature is full of learned papers on the matter.



Are you thinking about that recent paper about the Flintstones in Nature Genetics?

I've decided I'm going to read that Whitmore article. I'll wager that it offers NO Biblical rationale whatsoever for its central premise of 'multiple droughts during the flood' (a flood lasting around ONE year). The Bible is NOT as stupid as your average Young Earth Creationist. You know, those people who (mis)use it to build 'science' theories - for the intellectually challenged and others who have lost all objectivity.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 01, 2012 9:22 pm

Email as just sent concerning ''Do mud cracks indicate multiple droughts during the flood?'



How on earth could just one drought, never mind several, occur during
a major flood? Even a flood lasting a 'year'? By definition droughts
are LENGTHY periods of minimal rainfall - lasting MONTHS or YEARS.

You can get a flood, or several floods, during an official drought.
The drought in such cases came FIRST. What is happening TODAY in parts
of southwestern, central and eastern England is precisely this -
flooding during a drought.

Yet young Earth creationist John Whitmore wrote a chapter entitled 'Do
mud cracks indicate multiple droughts during the flood' in a recent
'creation science' apologetics book entitled 'Rock Solid Answers'.

Parts of the chapter can be viewed online Google Books, including the
Abstract on page 167. From which I now quote: "Critics of creationism
contend that mud cracks are found throughout the geological record and
are thus 'proof' against a global Flood. A short catastrophic Flood
could not have caused the bulk of the sedimentary rock record, they
say, because of the multiple droughts indicated by the mud cracks...
Even though they are probably rarer in the rock record than Flood
critics admit, it also appears that true mud cracks could have formed
during the Flood".

I then looked at the Conclusion, parts of which are worth quoting:
"True dessication mud cracks may have formed in limited areas during
the Flood. Observation has proven that mud cracks can form quickly,
even during times of brief exposure and with damp sediments. However,
there are several other mechanisms that can lead to clay shrinkage and
subsequent sand-filling of cracks that can closely resemble mud
cracks...".

The chapter appears not to quote the BIBLE at all, even though
Whitmore is discussing the Biblical Flood of Genesis. So I will quote
the Bible FOR HIM (from Genesis 7:11 to Genesis 8:5, in the NIV):
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of
the second month - on that day all the springs of the great deep burst
forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on
the earth forty days and forty nights.
On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together
with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They
had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock
according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground
according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything
with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them
came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and
female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord
shut him in.
For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters
increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and
increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of
the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains
under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the
mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing
that moved on land perished - birds, livestock, wild animals, all the
creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry
land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living
thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and
the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from
the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock
that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and
the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of
the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the
sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the
hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth
day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of
Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on
the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became
visible".

Whitmore's phrase, concerning possible mud crack formation, is "during
the Flood". This implies during the 150 days (the first 40 of which
apparently saw continuous rain), rather than subsequently as the waters
receded.

WHERE does the Bible indicate that while they were rising the flood
waters (from both rain and underground water) periodically ebbed or
sank back to allow cracking of mud? We are meant, according to the
Bible, to be looking at a worldwide flood that covered literally ALL
land within the space of just MONTHS. Yet our young Earth creationist
geologist wants us to contemplate that mud cracking might have taken
place during this event.

I thought YECs considered the Bible infallible and believed everything
it says without question?

On 17.2.10 Paul Garner, in a discussion under a blog entry dated
10.2.10 within his New Creationism blog, flagged Whitmore's chapter.

Whitmore, Garner and fellow YEC Andrew Snelling are the presenters of
a recent YEC-oriented DVD on UK geological formations, entitled 'Set in
Stone'.

Which the creationist organisation named 'Truth in Science' has
decided on its website is a 'teaching tool'.

Go figure!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 02, 2012 3:37 am

On 29 April, within his blog Ken Ham was going on about something called 'Canyon Ministries'.
http://www.canyonministries.com
According to Mr Ham, quoted on their homepage:
"A ride on one of Tom's rafts is not only wonderful because of the adventure of running the rapids, but also because of the solid teaching received in geology and the Bible. The experience greatly helped me better understand how the Grand Canyon is a marvelous testimony to what the Bible teaches about the Flood and its after-effects. Of all my travels, none has been more exciting and educational. Highly recommended.".

The (web)site is obviously a place to go for a whitewash.

What about canyons away from Earth? According to the Abstract to an article (not read) on the AiG website:
"Opposite Hellas, the largest impact basin on Mars, are the Tharsis volcanoes, the largest volcanoes in the solar system. Directly opposite the center of Hellas impact basin is the volcano called Alba Patera. Alba Patera is the largest Martian volcano by surface area. Coming off of the Tharsis plateau is Valles Marineris, the largest known valley in the solar system.
The unlikely geographic relationship between these gigantic features suggests a cause and effect relationship between them. This implies a global Martian catastrophe comparable in scale to the Genesis Flood.
The twin rovers, Opportunity and Spirit, have provided evidence in support of a Martian geological catastrophe. Data sent from Opportunity (and from orbit) show that it landed in an area that was catastrophically flooded from the south forming a large splat zone in the north.
Current data provide an excellent starting point for a young Mars catastrophic geologic model allowing the formation of a core young Mars model".

I gather that the Valles Marineris canyon is up to 4 miles deep compared to 1 mile 'only' for the Grand Canyon (and it's on a much smaller planet).

So did the Martian Flood wipe out any life as on Earth, or was it simply for 'canyon building'?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby marcsurtees » Wed May 02, 2012 9:54 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:IF THE BIBLE WAS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WE WOULD KNOW IT. FROM SCIENCE.

No need to shout. As a wise person once said, raise your argument not your voice.
Who said that the Bible is scientific evidence? It is nothing of the sort. It is God's revelation of things that He has done and is planning to do.
But as history it is accurate. So when it comes into conflict with any conclusions from human investigations it is the conclusions that we question. The conclusions of scientists can be tested against God's revelation. But not the other way around.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby jon_12091 » Wed May 02, 2012 11:24 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I then looked at the Conclusion, parts of which are worth quoting:
"True dessication mud cracks may have formed in limited areas during
the Flood. Observation has proven that mud cracks can form quickly,
even during times of brief exposure and with damp sediments. However,
there are several other mechanisms that can lead to clay shrinkage and
subsequent sand-filling of cracks that can closely resemble mud
cracks..."

Whitmore is right, there are other mechanisms by which mud crack-like structures can be arrived at. However, as with other similar creationist arguments, this does not mean that all mud crack-like structures are not the result of prolonged and multiple periods descication.
'Young Earth Creationism' allowing atheists to prove the Bible is wrong since 1961.
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby cathy » Wed May 02, 2012 11:27 am

But as history it is accurate.
Hmm so fill me in on the discrepancies in the order of creation between page one and two where they clearly change. The sons (plural) of God before Noahs flood compared with the only son of God in the NT. The tree of life mystery, the lack of YEC claims in the genesis punishments and so on and so forth.

So when it comes into conflict with any conclusions from human investigations it is the conclusions that we question.
I've read on a little bit now and am thinking. Even if the whole thing were true - how do you actually know that anyone behaved as God expected. I've got to the Abraham sacrificing son now. Even if that were accurate history, how do you know Abraham didn't fail the test set. How do you know God didn't want him to say 'sorry I cannot kill a defenceless child in cold blood' rather than the sort of blind obedience that leads to attrocities. Or wanted Noah to smuggle babies on to the ark? Cos lets face it thats more likely to be what he'd be testing and trying to get folk to do if he was any good. How do you know that god wasn't testing and all these supposedly impressive biblical characters were failing the tests?

The conclusions of scientists can be tested against God's revelation. But not the other way around.
Just be honest and ditch the creation 'science' garbage and lies, stop bullying people to believe it and stop trying to brainwash kids.
cathy
 
Posts: 3263
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed May 02, 2012 12:05 pm

marcsurtees wrote:But as history it is accurate.



Argument by assertion.

Sigh
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 5760
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 02, 2012 6:51 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:IF THE BIBLE WAS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WE WOULD KNOW IT. FROM SCIENCE.

No need to shout. As a wise person once said, raise your argument not your voice.
Who said that the Bible is scientific evidence? It is nothing of the sort. It is God's revelation of things that He has done and is planning to do.
But as history it is accurate. So when it comes into conflict with any conclusions from human investigations it is the conclusions that we question. The conclusions of scientists can be tested against God's revelation. But not the other way around.



I was not shouting. I was speaking with emphasis.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 02, 2012 6:56 pm

The contortions of the mindset of the YEC!

He writes: "The Bible is evidence and a framework (paradigm) from which we can derive scientific hypothesis... ".

So I then point out - with emphasis not as a shout - that if the Bible was scientific evidence this would be apparent from actual science.

Marc then ducks and weaves: "Who said that the Bible is scientific evidence? It is nothing of the sort. It is God's revelation of things that He has done and is planning to do. But as history it is accurate. So when it comes into conflict with any conclusions from human investigations it is the conclusions that we question. The conclusions of scientists can be tested against God's revelation. But not the other way around".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri May 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Does anyone else think it odd that there appear to be no historical records from the Bronze Age of (small) numbers of humans spreading out from the Near East to recolonise the recently swamped and environmentally devastated Australian and South American continents (or alternatively the land they were on suddenly broke away from a bigger landmass and rushed headlong to the far corners of the planet taking them with it)?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby marcsurtees » Sat May 05, 2012 9:54 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Does anyone else think it odd that there appear to be no historical records from the Bronze Age of (small) numbers of humans spreading out from the Near East to recolonise the recently swamped and environmentally devastated Australian and South American continents (or alternatively the land they were on suddenly broke away from a bigger landmass and rushed headlong to the far corners of the planet taking them with it)?

Not really: seeing that the Bible is mainly about God's relationship with the descendants of Abraham and not a complete history of the world.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat May 05, 2012 3:30 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Does anyone else think it odd that there appear to be no historical records from the Bronze Age of (small) numbers of humans spreading out from the Near East to recolonise the recently swamped and environmentally devastated Australian and South American continents (or alternatively the land they were on suddenly broke away from a bigger landmass and rushed headlong to the far corners of the planet taking them with it)?

Not really: seeing that the Bible is mainly about God's relationship with the descendants of Abraham and not a complete history of the world.



Are the South American Incas and Australian Aborigines not decendants of Abraham ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 3882
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: More thoughts about thoughts about the Flood

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 05, 2012 9:02 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Does anyone else think it odd that there appear to be no historical records from the Bronze Age of (small) numbers of humans spreading out from the Near East to recolonise the recently swamped and environmentally devastated Australian and South American continents (or alternatively the land they were on suddenly broke away from a bigger landmass and rushed headlong to the far corners of the planet taking them with it)?

Not really: seeing that the Bible is mainly about God's relationship with the descendants of Abraham and not a complete history of the world.


I wasn't talking about Biblical records, I was talking about HISTORICAL records.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests