Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on January 17, 2016, 11:38:33 AM
-
deleted
-
Floo,
Before the flood,
1. How high were the mountains?
2. How many kinds of animal were there?
3. Where did kangaroos live?
4. What was different about the animals Noah sacrificed and how many pairs of them had he taken on the ark?
5. When was incest first prohibited?
-
Floo,
Before the flood,
1. How high were the mountains?
2. How many kinds of animal were there?
3. Where did kangaroos live?
4. What was different about the animals Noah sacrificed and how many pairs of them had he taken on the ark?
5. When was incest first prohibited?
1. So the mountains were small, or non existent ?
2. There were very few creatures just enough to fill the ark with two of each gender?
3. Kangaroos were living in the Middle East?
4. There was something different about the animals Noah sacrificed?
5. Incest was fine until the deity no longer approved of it?
YEH RIGHT, VERY CREDIBLE! ::)
-
Floo, the "clean" animals were seven times two.
-
Floo, the "clean" animals were seven times two.
Ehhhhhhhhhhh?
-
Ehhhhhhhhhhh?
Read the relavant parts of Genesis.
-
Read the relavant parts of Genesis.
Genesis 8v20 (NIV) says nothing about seven times two, or the relevance of your comment?
-
1. The flooding of a whole planet above mountain height is impossible, there is not enough water in the world to provide the precipitation necessary.
There have been times when much if not all of the globe has been under ice, so I suspect that, technically, there would be sufficient moisture in the world for such an event to occur.
4. After the flood it is reported Noah sacrificed some of the animals, so presumably those species died out?
You nclearly haven't read the passage very well, Floo. It says that God instructed Noah to take 7 pairs of all the clean animals and 2 of the unclean animals - a male and its mate making up each 'pair' - and 7 pairs of each kind of bird. In the context, one only sacrifices 'clean animals', so even if he had sacrificed 12 of each animal and bird, provided tthat 12 was made up of 6 male and 6 female, there would still have been 1 pair left for reproduction - but there is no suggestion that he sacrificed that many oif any of the species.
5. Noah and his family must have been incestuously bonking like rabbits for a long time to replace the world's population.
We don't know what the population of the world was at the time, but in view of the fact that the global population was less than one billion until the early 19th century, they couldn't have been 'bonking' all that hard.
Well come on Biblical literalists let's hear your explanation!
Since the passage about the Flood occurs in a section of the Bible that is theological rather than historical, Bible literalists don't really have much to explain. Its odd that you clearly think that this passage was meant to be historical!! ;)
-
Genesis 8v20 (NIV) says nothing about seven times two, or the relevance of your comment?
Genesis 8:20 reads thus in the NIV Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.
Reading the whole story, from Chapter 7:1, you will notice that 7:2 states Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.(NIV)
That's why its important to read stories like this properly and taking the whole context into account.
-
There have been times when much if not all of the globe has been under ice, so I suspect that, technically, there would be sufficient moisture in the world for such an event to occur.
You nclearly haven't read the passage very well, Floo. It says that God instructed Noah to take 7 pairs of all the clean animals and 2 of the unclean animals - a male and its mate making up each 'pair' - and 7 pairs of each kind of bird. In the context, one only sacrifices 'clean animals', so even if he had sacrificed 12 of each animal and bird, provided tthat 12 was made up of 6 male and 6 female, there would still have been 1 pair left for reproduction - but there is no suggestion that he sacrificed that many oif any of the species.
We don't know what the population of the world was at the time, but in view of the fact that the global population was less than one billion until the early 19th century, they couldn't have been 'bonking' all that hard.
Since the passage about the Flood occurs in a section of the Bible that is theological rather than historical, Bible literalists don't really have much to explain. Its odd that you clearly think that this passage was meant to be historical!! ;)
I said the story was a fable, so obviously I don't think it is historical. I might be a daft old bat, but not that batty!
-
There have been times when much if not all of the globe has been under ice, so I suspect that, technically, there would be sufficient moisture in the world for such an event to occur.
Ice is around 12% larger, by volume, than an equivalent mass of water, so that's not necessarily the case. Similarly, whilst much of the low-lying lands in which humans tend to dwell, at high latitudes, was icebound, the majority of the tropical region never was, and the higher areas similarly weren't.
We don't know what the population of the world was at the time, but in view of the fact that the global population was less than one billion until the early 19th century, they couldn't have been 'bonking' all that hard.
The problem isn't one of geometric progression, it's more to do with the degree of genetic diversity that's apparent in humanity - and other species - which isn't consistent with having such a small population of humans as the common ancestry of all humanity barely a few thousand years ago.
Since the passage about the Flood occurs in a section of the Bible that is theological rather than historical, Bible literalists don't really have much to explain.
Well, they do, because there are literalists out there who don't think that any of it's solely theological, they genuinely believe this actually happened, within the last six thousand or so years - I appreciate that you aren't one of those people, but they are out there, and in alarmingly large numbers.
Its odd that you clearly think that this passage was meant to be historical!! ;)
Not really, given that some people who accept the validity of the work make that claim. I don't doubt that it isn't true, I've no idea if the authors originally believed it was, believed it was a reworking of an older true story rejigged for their time or if they knew it was nonsense in their own time but thought it added something to the book they were writing.
O.
-
Not really, given that some people who accept the validity of the work make that claim. I don't doubt that it isn't true, I've no idea if the authors originally believed it was, believed it was a reworking of an older true story rejigged for their time or if they knew it was nonsense in their own time but thought it added something to the book they were writing.
Linguistically, and content-wise, it is clear that the first 11 chapters of Genesis, as we have them today, were written in the late-6th/early-5th century BC (have to admit that I can never remember which round this kind of dating should be expressed). This being the case, it is likely that the author(s) wrote it in order to show those Jews who had spent the previous 70-odd years in exile in Babylon hw their God differed from the gods they would have come into contact with whilst in exile. It would also have been a reminder to those Jews who had remained in the 'Promised Land', many of whom would have been uneducated and possibly unable to have met as congregations/synagogues.
-
Dear Floo,
I miss him too, but look on the bright side we now have Alan Burns, a distinct improvement. 8)
Gonnagle.
-
I said the story was a fable, so obviously I don't think it is historical. I might be a daft old bat, but not that batty!
Yet you come up with detailed explanations that rely on 'literal' interpretations - explanations that I would never have thought of.
-
I have been re-reading the Biblical flood fable and find it incredible that anyone could believe it to be literally true, it is total nonsense. Here are five reasons why the story is crazy, I am sure others can come up with some more!
1. The flooding of a whole planet above mountain height is impossible, there is not enough water in the world to provide the precipitation necessary.
2. Noah's Ark would have to have been an incredible size to house two of every creature on Earth and store the food for those creatures.
3. How did Noah round up all the creatures, including animals like kangaroos which aren't native to the Middle East?
4. After the flood it is reported Noah sacrificed some of the animals, so presumably those species died out?
5. Noah and his family must have been incestuously bonking like rabbits for a long time to replace the world's population.
Well come on Biblical literalists let's hear your explanation!
We have done this some time ago,try to keep up Floo.
~TW~
-
Floo,
Before the flood,
1. How high were the mountains?
2. How many kinds of animal were there?
3. Where did kangaroos live?
4. What was different about the animals Noah sacrificed and how many pairs of them had he taken on the ark?
5. When was incest first prohibited?
I know, it's a trick question. There was no Flood.
-
We have done this some time ago,try to keep up Floo.
~TW~
She does, ~TW~; she usually starts the threads related to the Flood. ;)
-
Didn't Margaret Thatcher shut down all of those special retirement homes for creationists and those that believe the biblical flood really happened?
ippy
-
Well that's just it, I don't think floo was rereading, rather she stumbled on some atheist sight and pulled these same old questions.
-
Dear Floo,
I miss him too, but look on the bright side we now have Alan Burns, a distinct improvement. 8)
Gonnagle.
Sorry whom are we missing?
-
Sorry whom are we missing?
Looked at this one Floo and realised that Woody, our good old Canadian chopper friend has got his lines crossed, I think he means B A.
Looks like he's another one that thinks the flood really happened, he can't be a creationist too, surely not?
ippy
PS be surprised when I get all of the spellings right
-
Looked at this one Floo and realised that Woody, our good old Canadian chopper friend has got his lines crossed, I think he means B A.
Looks like he's another one that thinks the flood really happened, he can't be a creationist too, surly not?
ippy
He certainly can be pretty surly, ippy ;)
-
Looked at this one Floo and realised that Woody, our good old Canadian chopper friend has got his lines crossed, I think he means B A.
Looks like he's another one that thinks the flood really happened, he can't be a creationist too, surly not?
ippy
BA doesn't believe the OT to be literally true.
-
Treeless ippy,
Don't be turning this thread into one about me, I know you have a big old man crush on me but, YIKES MAN! Let's keep it about floo and her claim of rereading. (snork)
-
BA doesn't believe the OT to be literally true.
Sorry Floo, I meant Woody, not B A.
ippy
-
We have done this some time ago,try to keep up Floo.
~TW~
She does, ~TW~; she usually starts the threads related to the Flood. ;)
Hey, Hope.
Did you forget to directly remind ~TW~ that the flood wasn't literally real?
-
Not really, given that some people who accept the validity of the work make that claim. I don't doubt that it isn't true, I've no idea if the authors originally believed it was, believed it was a reworking of an older true story rejigged for their time or if they knew it was nonsense in their own time but thought it added something to the book they were writing.
O.
Like a number of passages in the Pentateuch, it's a combination of two accounts which contradict each other in a number of particulars. These probably came from disparate oral traditions, which were then combined by a redactor, who wanted to preserve as much as he could from both. However, since the said redactor knew that the biblical account would go on to tell of Noah performing an animal sacrifice after the Flood, I wonder whether he didn't introduce the material about the extra 'clean animals' in order to make provision for such anomalies as the otherwise inevitable extinction of goats and sheep in particular :)
-
And some call those people "primitives". Sound like they were all hip enough to consider the future. Of course don't get the idea that I think there is any evidence supporting the scribblings of Mr. Dick.
-
Treeless ippy and floo,
What's this literally true stuff? neither one of you godless have ever asked me, nobody has. Ya, ya, don't you all jump to ask the question now. You had years that you could have done so, but you godless are too consumed with God everyday.
-
Hey, Hope.
Did you forget to directly remind ~TW~ that the flood wasn't literally real?
No, I forgot to directly remind ~TW~ that Floo isn't literally true ;)
-
Like a number of passages in the Pentateuch, it's a combination of two accounts which contradict each other in a number of particulars. These probably came from disparate oral traditions, which were then combined by a redactor, who wanted to preserve as much as he could from both. However, since the said redactor knew that the biblical account would go on to tell of Noah performing an animal sacrifice after the Flood, I wonder whether he didn't introduce the material about the extra 'clean animals' in order to make provision for such anomalies as the otherwise inevitable extinction of goats and sheep in particular :)
Is there actually any evidence to support your initial claim, DU; and is there then any evidence that the author(s) inserted anything - after all, if it wasn't written until the 6th/5th century and was a theological treatise why would he/they need to insert anything?
-
Not directly regarding Noah's Flood but may be of interest to those who debate Creationism, there is a film on BBC4 tonight at 10pm, a biopic about Darwin called 'Creation'. Stars Paul Bettany, made 2009.
-
Paul Bettany is a good actor, but I hope that Emma Darwin wasn't the vinegar-faced joyless misery in real life that Jennifer Connelly (Mrs Bettany in real life) portrays her as, since Darwin would have been well within his rights to have buried the miserable baggage under the patio.
-
I'm not familiar with her, had to look her up. I'll reserve judgement until I have watched the film. Someone mentioned a programme about mammoths, must have been on the evolution thread.
-
And some call those people "primitives". Sound like they were all hip enough to consider the future. Of course don't get the idea that I think there is any evidence supporting the scribblings of Mr. Dick.
I said nothing about 'primitives'. However, the composite nature of the Pentateuch has been suspected since the early 18th C (see Henning Witter). It had to wait till 1780 before Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was brave enough to make his findings public.
I believe I was wrong about saying the details about the 'clean animals' were added. They belonged to an earlier account which related that sacrifices had begun with Cain and Abel and continued with Noah onwards (the J or Jahvist narrative). The later account, interpolated in the story, is known as the Priestly narrative (P) and in this writer's perspective there would be no sacrifices till the consecration of Aaron, so only two animals of each kind were needed (see the last chapter of Exodus).
So far from these being entirely my own speculations, they relate to a tradition of scholarship going back a long way. If you're interested, you'll find an excellent guide in "Who wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman (and American -unfortunately not Canadian-, forsooth!). If you're feeling very intellectually curious, you could try the work of Julius Wellhausen. I won't be holding my breath on that one.
P.S. These scholars argue that there were five hands at work in the Pentateuch - four original sources and one redactor.
-
Is there actually any evidence to support your initial claim, DU; and is there then any evidence that the author(s) inserted anything - after all, if it wasn't written until the 6th/5th century and was a theological treatise why would he/they need to insert anything?
I was wrong about the insertion of detail about the clean animals by a redactor. The 'clean animals' belong to the early Jahvist source. The Priestly narrative follows the early narratives of J and E, but writes his own parallel text. This author was intent on establishing the legitimacy of the Aaronic priesthood (see above), and wished to point out that sacrifices did not begin until the consecration of Aaron - therefore only two animals of each needed.
The evidence for the 'Documentary Hypothesis' is in the text itself, which is how the scholars I mentioned in the previous post came to their conclusions.
The final redactor was most likely Ezra (about the time you mentioned).
-
Treeless ippy and floo,
What's this literally true stuff? neither one of you godless have ever asked me, nobody has. Ya, ya, don't you all jump to ask the question now. You had years that you could have done so, but you godless are too consumed with God everyday.
It's the quirkiness of religiosos that fascinates me woody, not a single shred of evidence that would support any of the magical, mystic or the superstitional parts of these beliefs and you people still wont dump them?
ippy
-
Floo,
Before the flood,
1. How high were the mountains?
2. How many kinds of animal were there?
3. Where did kangaroos live?
4. What was different about the animals Noah sacrificed and how many pairs of them had he taken on the ark?
5. When was incest first prohibited?
When did Noah live, 6000 years ago? If so then 1 to 3 is as now, though I object to your term 'kind'.
-
When did Noah live, 6000 years ago? If so then 1 to 3 is as now, though I object to your term 'kind'.
Was reading about erosion yesterday. This might be of interest regarding mountains before and after the flood:
By noting the rates at which the surfaces of the continents are eroded and carried away by rivers to the oceans (see section 2 for specific values), one can calculate the length of time required to remove a given thickness of the continents. Judson and Ritter (1964) have estimated that for the United States the rate of erosion averages 6.1 cm/1000 years. At this rate of denudation the continents, which average 623 m above sea level, would be eroded to sea level in a mere 10.2 Ma. In other words, at this rate the present continents would be eroded over 340 times in the 3500 Ma assumed for the age of the continents.
www.grisda.org/origins/13064.htm
-
Was reading about erosion yesterday. This might be of interest regarding mountains before and after the flood:
By noting the rates at which the surfaces of the continents are eroded and carried away by rivers to the oceans (see section 2 for specific values), one can calculate the length of time required to remove a given thickness of the continents. Judson and Ritter (1964) have estimated that for the United States the rate of erosion averages 6.1 cm/1000 years. At this rate of denudation the continents, which average 623 m above sea level, would be eroded to sea level in a mere 10.2 Ma. In other words, at this rate the present continents would be eroded over 340 times in the 3500 Ma assumed for the age of the continents.
www.grisda.org/origins/13064.htm
There is no evidence of any global flood! ::)
-
Was reading about erosion yesterday. This might be of interest regarding mountains before and after the flood:
By noting the rates at which the surfaces of the continents are eroded and carried away by rivers to the oceans (see section 2 for specific values), one can calculate the length of time required to remove a given thickness of the continents. Judson and Ritter (1964) have estimated that for the United States the rate of erosion averages 6.1 cm/1000 years. At this rate of denudation the continents, which average 623 m above sea level, would be eroded to sea level in a mere 10.2 Ma. In other words, at this rate the present continents would be eroded over 340 times in the 3500 Ma assumed for the age of the continents.
www.grisda.org/origins/13064.htm
When do you believe the flood happened Spud? Are you aware that any such calculations ignore the processes which lift up the continents, such as uplift due to continental shelf collisions and volcanic activity - processes which are much more fully understood now than it was in the days of Judson and Ritter (1964)? I'm sure you are aware that the website you copied this from sets out to look for anything which would support the biblical account?
-
Was reading about erosion yesterday. This might be of interest regarding mountains before and after the flood:
By noting the rates at which the surfaces of the continents are eroded and carried away by rivers to the oceans (see section 2 for specific values), one can calculate the length of time required to remove a given thickness of the continents. Judson and Ritter (1964) have estimated that for the United States the rate of erosion averages 6.1 cm/1000 years. At this rate of denudation the continents, which average 623 m above sea level, would be eroded to sea level in a mere 10.2 Ma. In other words, at this rate the present continents would be eroded over 340 times in the 3500 Ma assumed for the age of the continents.
www.grisda.org/origins/13064.htm
You do know what Ma means? Because your post doesn't make sense.
-
When do you believe the flood happened Spud? Are you aware that any such calculations ignore the processes which lift up the continents, such as uplift due to continental shelf collisions and volcanic activity - processes which are much more fully understood now than it was in the days of Judson and Ritter (1964)? I'm sure you are aware that the website you copied this from sets out to look for anything which would support the biblical account?
Look at the theory of how India drifted across the ocean for about 30 million years then crashed into Asia, creating the Himalayas. India would actually have been eroded entirely in the time it took to get there after splitting from Gondwanaland, given these rates of erosion. When you look at the pictures, India stays the same shape and size for all that time.
Read on a bit in the link I gave. Roth says,
"It has been suggested that mountains still exist because they are constantly being renewed by uplift from below. However, this process of uplift could not go through even one complete cycle of erosion and uplift without eradicating the layers of the geologic column found in them. Present erosion rates would tend to rapidly eradicate evidence of older sediments; yet these sediments are still very well-represented, both in mountains and elsewhere."
-
Spud
Your earlier link is to a creationist website masquerading as a scientific one: its mission statement says;
The Geoscience Research Institute is sponsored by the Seventh-day Adventist Church with a mission to discover and share an understanding of nature and its relationship with the Biblical revelation of the Creator God.
So we can ignore that one: perhaps it would be better to link to genuine science resources instead of creationist charlatans.
-
Look at the theory of how India drifted across the ocean for about 30 million years then crashed into Asia, creating the Himalayas. India would actually have been eroded entirely in the time it took to get there after splitting from Gondwanaland, given these rates of erosion. When you look at the pictures, India stays the same shape and size for all that time.
Based on your comment about India drifting across the ocean I think you need to do a bit more reading about plate tectonics. But as a general question Spud, when you make an observation such as this do you really think you (or the creationist websites you probably get it from) have spotted something which all the thousands and thousands of highly qualified scientists who work in the relevant fields have not spotted?
-
Based on your comment about India drifting across the ocean I think you need to do a bit more reading about plate tectonics. But as a general question Spud, when you make an observation such as this do you really think you (or the creationist websites you probably get it from) have spotted something which all the thousands and thousands of highly qualified scientists who work in the relevant fields have not spotted?
To be honest, they don't seem to have spotted it. If they have, they haven't acknowledged that existing layers of sedimentary rock cannot be more than a few tens of millions of years old, based on current erosion rates. Someone did once say that eroded material gets re-deposited on continental shelves, but that doesn't help.
-
To be honest, they don't seem to have spotted it.
Now why do you think that might be?
-
To be honest, they don't seem to have spotted it, they haven't acknowledged that existing layers of sedimentary rock cannot be more than a few tens of millions of years old, based on current erosion rates.
Is that really credible? That all the qualified people working in the field over the years have missed this?
... Someone did once say that eroded material gets re-deposited on continental shelves, but that doesn't help.
Someone did once say ... what down the pub? I think, as ever, you need to go to some decent scientific sources rather than relying on what creationist websites say that scientists say.
-
A creationist 'scientist' is not credible, imo.
-
A creationist 'scientist' is not credible, imo.
It's an oxymoron for starters.
-
To be honest, they don't seem to have spotted it. If they have, they haven't acknowledged that existing layers of sedimentary rock cannot be more than a few tens of millions of years old, based on current erosion rates.
Except that:
- what are currently exposed sedimentary rocks might well have been covered by other rocks in previous millenia
- erosion rates vary with climate, which has changed considerably over time
- erosion rates are independent of the various mechanisms which replace surface rock over time
Someone did once say that eroded material gets re-deposited on continental shelves, but that doesn't help.
It does when you realise that over millenia what is currently continental shelf becomes continent...
O.
-
what are currently exposed sedimentary rocks might well have been covered by other rocks in previous millenia
Yes- Eg in Grand Canyon, where the remains of other sediments a mile or so deep, which would have covered the sediments that are still present, are seen some distance from the canyon.
-
Yes- Eg in Grand Canyon, where the remains of other sediments a mile or so deep, which would have covered the sediments that are still present, are seen some distance from the canyon.
Tell us more.
-
Yes- Eg in Grand Canyon, where the remains of other sediments a mile or so deep, which would have covered the sediments that are still present, are seen some distance from the canyon.
Ah - I seem to remember you coming up with this same creationist crap about the Grand Canyon a while ago, Spud, and I think it was only Richard that could be bothered enough to kick it into touch: you really need to keep away from these lying creationist websites Spud, as I noted in relation to the last one you cited.
Try some proper science literature for a change.
-
Gordon, I don't think anyone is lying as such. Rather, both sides come to different conclusions from the evidence: creationists believe that the Bible is true and therefore conclude that the sediments were laid down catastrophically; non-creationists make the assumption that the same processes we see today whereby sediments build up on the ocean floor, have gone on uninterrupted for millions of years. Both sides use specific observations to support their conclusions, such as soil layers for old-earthers; polystrate fossils for creationsists.
-
Gordon, I don't think anyone is lying as such. Rather, both sides come to different conclusions from the evidence: creationists believe that the Bible is true
On absolutely no grounds whatsoever.
-
Gordon, I don't think anyone is lying as such. Rather, both sides come to different conclusions from the evidence: creationists believe that the Bible is true
Then if these creationists aren't liars they are idiots: that said 'idiotic liars' seems just about right based on the content of their web-sites - they are liars Spud!
The Earth is very old and no amount of posturing by the chronically credulous masquerading as 'creation scientists' and who make ridiculous attempts to claim their 'God' as a valid geological theory will change that: creationism is quite simply abject nonsense (as is 'God').
-
I'm afraid I tend to put creation-ists and scientism-ists in the same category - both endowing their particular understanding of reality with unreal power.
The only thing I can say for creationism is that, if God is a omnipotent as everyone seems to claim him to be, he could quite easily have 'weathered', 'fossilised' and 'half-lived' everything to appear to be as old as non-creationists believe it to be. The problem I have with that is 'Why?' What's the point?
-
I'm afraid I tend to put creation-ists and scientism-ists in the same category - both endowing their particular understanding of reality with unreal power.
The only thing I can say for creationism is that, if God is a omnipotent as everyone seems to claim him to be
So you don't, then?
he could quite easily have 'weathered', 'fossilised' and 'half-lived' everything to appear to be as old as non-creationists believe it to be. The problem I have with that is 'Why?' What's the point?
The problem I have with it is: "How would you know?"
-
I'm afraid I tend to put creation-ists and scientism-ists in the same category - both endowing their particular understanding of reality with unreal power.
.
Nope: the two aren't comparable, where the former are liars for God and the latter make no claims that aren't supported by evidence and theory that is naturalistic - more importantly, for science nothing is fixed and sacred and 'we don't yet fully understand' is a perfectly reasonable stance.
-
... the latter make no claims that aren't supported by evidence and theory that is naturalistic -
Precisely, Gordon, they put all their faith in naturalistic thinking, the exclusivity of which there is no evidence.
-
Precisely, Gordon, they put all their faith in naturalistic thinking, the exclusivity of which there is no evidence.
Firstly it isn't faith, since we're talking about evidentialism here.
Secondly, there are no other contenders for a consistently accurate and reliable method for understanding the world. Sure, from time to time you get cranks spouting off about other kinds of reality and other ways of knowing, but without fail, whenever you ask them to put something on the table and show their working, each and every time they suddenly remember they've left the gas on and disappear. Every time.
-
So you don't, then?
I was pointing out that even the atheists here seem to use this as taken as granted in many of their arguments.
The problem I have with it is: "How would you know?"
In view of the conditional nature of the proposition, that would seem to be an irrelevant problem. Anyone who has the power to do something, could do it without anyone knowing.
-
Dodge, dodge, duck, dive, bob and weave.
Pitiful.
-
Firstly it isn't faith, since we're talking about evidentialism here.
OK, where is the evidence that the naturalistic approach is the sole valid approach?
Secondly, there are no other contenders for a consistently accurate and reliable method for understanding the world. Sure, from time to time you get cranks spouting off anout other kinds of reality and other ways of knowing, but without fail, whenever you ask them to put something on the table and show their working, each and every time they suddenly remember they've left the gas on and disappear. Every time
So, they behave in much the same way as the naturalistic thinkers who, whenever asked for the evidence for their understanding, bluster with suggestions that 'there are no other contenders for a consistently accurate and reliable method for understanding the world'; there is no reference to material evidence for its sole validity.
-
Dodge, dodge, duck, dive, bob and weave.
Pitiful.
Good to see you accepting your behaviour.
-
OK, where is the evidence that the naturalistic approach is the sole valid approach?
You could start with the stunning and consistent success of the scientific method in actually understanding the world, not making handy-wavy assertions about it. After that, you could start asking around of these cranks who bang on about other kinds of reality and so forth and ask them to give a methodology for what they claim to know.
I hope you have better luck than I do - in my experience they all run away.
So, they behave in much the same way as the naturalistic thinkers who, whenever asked for the evidence for their understanding, bluster with suggestions that 'there are no other contenders for a consistently accurate and reliable method for understanding the world'; there is no reference to material evidence for its sole validity.
See above.
-
Good to see you accepting your behaviour.
Are you four? "Yeah, I know I am, so what are you?" is immature even for primary school pupils.
-
Precisely, Gordon, they put all their faith in naturalistic thinking, the exclusivity of which there is no evidence.
For there to be 'evidence' at all there needs to be a method within which said evidence can be firstly identified as being evidence and then categorised, described, measured, analysed and seen within the context of a theoretical model etc etc - all those things that science does within the confines of naturalism.
If you are saying, somewhat tortuously, that there may well be an alternative approach that is mutually exclusive of naturalism then you'll need to describe the methodology that applies to this, since if you can't then you must reject any claims that are outwith naturalism as being no more than unsupported conjecture else you'd be floundering in fallacies - again.
-
OK, where is the evidence that the naturalistic approach is the sole valid approach?
So, they behave in much the same way as the naturalistic thinkers who, whenever asked for the evidence for their understanding, bluster with suggestions that 'there are no other contenders for a consistently accurate and reliable method for understanding the world'; there is no reference to material evidence for its sole validity.
No blustering involved, since without some kind of non-naturalistic methodology that is comparable with the discipline of the scientific method then the only reasonable conclusion is that, as things stand, naturalism really is all there is - and that that without some comparable non-naturalistic methodology any claims of the divine (all of them) are best considered as being fallacious nonsense.
-
OK, where is the evidence that the naturalistic approach is the sole valid approach?
Non sequitur: since any 'evidence' would involve there being an acknowledged, verifiable and reliable non-naturalistic methodology - and there isn't one.
The burden of proof is yours here.
-
OK, where is the evidence that the naturalistic approach is the sole valid approach?
OK, where is the evidence that it isn't?
-
Gordon, I don't think anyone is lying as such. Rather, both sides come to different conclusions from the evidence: creationists believe that the Bible is true and therefore conclude that the sediments were laid down catastrophically;
That's not coming to the conclusion from the evidence, that's pre-supposing the conclusion from the story.
non-creationists make the assumption that the same processes we see today whereby sediments build up on the ocean floor, have gone on uninterrupted for millions of years. Both sides use specific observations to support their conclusions, such as soil layers for old-earthers; polystrate fossils for creationsists.
Polystrate fossils are a perfectly well-explained phenomena that SUPPORTS the scientific consensus.
O.
-
Precisely, Gordon, they put all their faith in naturalistic thinking, the exclusivity of which there is no evidence.
Is there any need for it to be exclusive? It works, so they accept it - if you can suggest any other methodology that works, they'll accept that, too.
Until and unless you can, they aren't doctrinarily ignoring other methods, they're just pragmatically limiting themselves to methods that actually work.
That's not 'faith', that's working from the available information: trust. This difference has been repeatedly explained to you.
O.
-
Is there any need for it to be exclusive? It works, so they accept it - if you can suggest any other methodology that works, they'll accept that, too.
Until and unless you can, they aren't doctrinarily ignoring other methods, they're just pragmatically limiting themselves to methods that actually work.
That's not 'faith', that's working from the available information: trust. This difference has been repeatedly explained to you.
And every bit as uselessly as everything else that's ever been explained to him.
-
Non sequitur: since any 'evidence' would involve there being an acknowledged, verifiable and reliable non-naturalistic methodology - and there isn't one.
The burden of proof is yours here.
That also applies to you regarding nothing evolving.
~TW~
-
...... polystrate fossils for creationsists.
Do you think Polystrate fossils are evidence to support creationists? If so, why?
-
That also applies to you regarding nothing evolving.
~TW~
It would do if that's what people claimed - but no one does except for creationists like you who wish to lump in the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution into one thing, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you that they are different theories with different amounts of supporting evidence..
-
It would do if that's what people claimed - but no one does except for creationists like you who wish to lump in the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution into one thing, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you that they are different theories with different amounts of supporting evidence..
Explain you explain,settle down in your chair and rest.Get your breathe back and take another long day pill,you know it makes sense.
~TW~
-
Explain you explain,settle down in your chair and rest.Get your breathe back and take another long day pill,you know it makes sense.
~TW~
Maybe you should take another long holiday.
Now that makes sense for everyone here!
-
Explain you explain,settle down in your chair and rest.Get your breathe back and take another long day pill,you know it makes sense.
~TW~
What wonderful advice. ABout the only sensible thing you've ever said on here (apart from the explain you explain which makes no sense at all!)
-
Do you think Polystrate fossils are evidence to support creationists? If so, why?
Yes- they are evidence for rapid sedimentation
-
Yes- they are evidence for rapid sedimentation
Yes they are, but since they are localised they indicate rapid, localised flooding events. In what way does this support creationism? Do you think they are a problem for the old earth, non-creationist model?
-
I think they indicate more than localized flooding events, and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old. Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.
-
I think they indicate more than localized flooding events, and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old. Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.
Is that the view of professional geologists (those who publish in reputable science journals)?
-
I think they indicate more than localized flooding events,
Not according to my understanding. Can you point to any non-localised examples.
... and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old. Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.
This would only be relevant if you can show they are not localised.
-
Hi Maeght,
Not according to my understanding. Can you point to any non-localised examples.
How about Joggins Fossil Cliffs?
I said "Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils." You said,
This would only be relevant if you can show they are not localised.
Joggins Fossil Cliffs are said to date back to 300 mya, preserving a 15 million year sequence.
Take a giant lycopod that cuts through dozens of layers. Allow 50 years for these layers to accumulate around the upright trunk, to a depth of say 5 meters. Take the total depth of the deposit at Joggins to be 1000 m (given a 3 km long cliff and a 20 degree angle of inclination of the strata). We have 5 m of sediment accumulating in 50 years. If this occurs continually it will take 1000/5 x 50 = 10,000 years for all 1000 m of sediments to accumulate.
If they were forming at the rate of 5 m per 50 years but had taken 15 million years to accumulate, there would have been periods of thousands of years where no sediment was laid down. During these periods we would expect to see erosion of the layers so that the boundaries would now appear irregular. Instead the boundaries are flat, indicating that little or no erosion occurred and therefore that the entire sequence was laid down over a relatively short time span, not 15 million years.
-
That also applies to you regarding nothing evolving.
~TW~
Can you give an example of someone claiming that 'nothing' evolved, please?
O.
-
I think they indicate more than localized flooding events, and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old. Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.
If there were a continuum of polystrate fossils from the same timeframe (and if the six thousand years since the alleged flood were enough time for the sediment to become rocks) then you might have a point. However, there is not a continuous run of these, nor are the ones that are found uniformly from the same period. The evidence points to independent localised flooding events at different locations at different times.
You know, like weather.
O.
-
Hi Maeght,
Hi Spud,
How about Joggins Fossil Cliffs?
Which shows localised areas of polystrate fossils.
Joggins Fossil Cliffs are said to date back to 300 mya, preserving a 15 million year sequence.
Take a giant lycopod that cuts through dozens of layers. Allow 50 years for these layers to accumulate around the upright trunk, to a depth of say 5 meters. Take the total depth of the deposit at Joggins to be 1000 m (given a 3 km long cliff and a 20 degree angle of inclination of the strata). We have 5 m of sediment accumulating in 50 years. If this occurs continually it will take 1000/5 x 50 = 10,000 years for all 1000 m of sediments to accumulate.
If they were forming at the rate of 5 m per 50 years but had taken 15 million years to accumulate, there would have been periods of thousands of years where no sediment was laid down. During these periods we would expect to see erosion of the layers so that the boundaries would now appear irregular. Instead the boundaries are flat, indicating that little or no erosion occurred and therefore that the entire sequence was laid down over a relatively short time span, not 15 million years.
The mechanism for such polystrate fossils would be rapid sedimentation due to localised flooding events, so the numbers you are working on are not relevant. Joggins Fossil Cliffs present no problems to the standard old earth geological model.
-
How do you know the flooding events were localized?
-
There is no evidence the whole world was flooded at one time!
-
How do you know the flooding events were localized?
Because the fossils are localised.
-
Mt St Helen's volcanic eruption's are interesting in this regard. Take a look here
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism
-
There is no evidence the whole world was flooded at one time!
Spot on.
Yet believers cling to their myths as if they were real.
-
Gordon, I don't think anyone is lying as such. Rather, both sides come to different conclusions from the evidence: creationists believe that the Bible is true and therefore conclude that the sediments were laid down catastrophically;
There is lying going on here. Creationists are lying to themselves. They start with the conclusion and then massage the evidence to try to make it fit the facts story.
non-creationists make the assumption that the same processes we see today whereby sediments build up on the ocean floor, have gone on uninterrupted for millions of years.
Wrong. This is the conclusion based on the evidence, not an assumption.
-
There is no evidence the whole world was flooded at one time!
Floo you seem to forget that you're dealing here with the whole combined force of Spud and TW; have you checked your facts an redoubled your efforts on this very deep intelectual challenge you have chosen to undertake?
ippy
-
I think they indicate more than localized flooding events,
Wouldn't we find them everywhere if they were evidence of non localised flood events?
and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old.
How?
Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.
Why?
-
Because the fossils are localised.
I think I see what you mean: if the flooding events were global, the fossils in question would be scattered further afield rather than just in the sediments at Joggins?
-
I think I see what you mean: if the flooding events were global, the fossils in question would be scattered further afield rather than just in the sediments at Joggins?
Is this where I say yes and you come back with saying they are found all over the planet? Or am I being unfair there? The evidence at sites of polystrate fossils such as at Joggins fits with different localised events (often linked to volcanic activity such as at Mt St Helens) rather than one world wide flooding event. Polystrate fossils are not seen as a challenge to the standard geological model of an old earth within the field of geology and have been understood for a long time - it is only on creationist websites and the like where they are presented as being a problem and linked to a global flood. One problem with finding the standard scientific literature on such fossils though is that the term polystrate fossil is not a standard geological term and most usually turns up in creationist literature. An internet search therefore tends to mainly turn up the creationist point of view and gives a misleading idea of the understanding of such fossils.
Did you read the information about Mt St Helens? Fascinating don't you think.
-
Did you read the information about Mt St Helens? Fascinating don't you think.
Yes, it claims to be evidence for the biblical flood, right?
-
Yes, it claims to be evidence for the biblical flood, right?
You're not taking this seriously are you?
-
Is this where I say yes and you come back with saying they are found all over the planet?
I wasn't going to say that. The sediments at Joggins are restricted to a 15km section of coastline.
-
You're not taking this seriously are you?
Why not take it seriously?
-
I wasn't going to say that. The sediments at Joggins are restricted to a 15km section of coastline.
That's good to hear.
-
http://sedimentlog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/drama-in-rocks.html?m=1
How most of the world's sedimentary rocks were formed.
-
Can't open the link on my computer - but just going from what you say there, the mechanism for most sedimebntary rocks is not the only mechanism possible.
-
Can't open the link on my computer - but just going from what you say there, the mechanism for most sedimebntary rocks is not the only mechanism possible.
Try the BBC.
~TW~
-
Try the BBC.
~TW~
I know how most sedimentary rocks are formed. But the key is most, not all.
-
Can't open the link on my computer - but just going from what you say there, the mechanism for most sedimebntary rocks is not the only mechanism possible.
If you google "Drama in the rocks" you should find a four part video on sedimentation and stratification.
-
If you google "Drama in the rocks" you should find a four part video on sedimentation and stratification.
Sure - but is it just talking about the way most sedimentary rocks are normally formed i.e. by build-up of layers over a long period of time? If so I know that. Since I'm busy I would appreciate a summary.
-
Yes- Eg in Grand Canyon, where the remains of other sediments a mile or so deep, which would have covered the sediments that are still present, are seen some distance from the canyon.
Hope I'm not getting you wrong here but are you saying that the Grand Canyon could only have been formed by a cataclysmic event like a worldwide flood?
-
Hope I'm not getting you wrong here but are you saying that the Grand Canyon could only have been formed by a cataclysmic event like a worldwide flood?
I was referring to the missing upper strata of Grand Canyon (only remnants of them are present), which could conceivably have been slowly eroded over millions of years. But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there.
-
But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there.
We would if we could sit and watch for millions of years.
-
I was referring to the missing upper strata of Grand Canyon (only remnants of them are present), which could conceivably have been slowly eroded over millions of years. But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there.
Sedimentation occurs under the see mainly of course and if effected by a number of factors. This process takes place over a very long time span, so what data re you using to make your suggestion?
-
I was referring to the missing upper strata of Grand Canyon (only remnants of them are present), which could conceivably have been slowly eroded over millions of years. But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there.
OK - this is what geologists are saying?
-
Sedimentation occurs under the see mainly of course and if effected by a number of factors. This process takes place over a very long time span, so what data re you using to make your suggestion?
The video demonstrates sediment deposition in a lateral direction by fast flowing water, and the authors suggest that the Grand Canyon sediments were laid down in that way.
-
The video demonstrates sediment deposition in a lateral direction by fast flowing water, and the authors suggest that the Grand Canyon sediments were laid down in that way.
That doesn't answer my question as to why you say 'But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there'
Regarding Walther’s Law this is nothing new of course and as far as I can see is taught and understood within standard geology. The videos seem to think that geologists aren't aware of this phenomena, but this isn't correct it seems to me. If it doesn't cause any issues to the vast majority of those working in the field - only to those who wish to challenge evolution - why should we see it as a problem?
I have to say - the credibility of the speaker was certainly questioned early on when he suggested that the theory of evolution is 'crumbling' when this is not the case at all.
-
This clip is a good description of Walther's law and other clips by the same women are worth looking at. They demonstrate that this phenomena is well recognised and understand in standard geology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsULiPouTo
-
That doesn't answer my question as to why you say 'But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there
Thanks for watching the video, and sorry for the delay in replying. I don't fully understand the way they were applying Walther's law to deep sea sediments, so will read a bit more about it. And I didn't think the logic was very sound when they suggest that 'layers' traverse numerous 'banks'. The flume tank experiments suggested that for every three or four strata there are lots of layers deposited at an angle in a lateral direction, when you pour a mixture of coarse and fine sand grains into fast flowing water.
Still, it showed that if there were continuous transgressions and regressions of the sea over the land during a worldwide flood, caused by tidal movement of the water, then the different sediments could be brought to the same basin in succession and laid down in strata by currents.
What I mean about not seeing the processes in operation today that laid down the sediments of the Colorado plateau, through which the grand canyon was cut, is that the quantity of sediment is too great to have been transported by the usual methods (rivers, wind etc). The Coconino Sandstone, for example, is estimated at 10,000 cubic miles of sand. If that had been laid down over millions of years, why were no other types of sediment laid down among the sandstone strata, and how was it transported?
-
Thanks for watching the video, and sorry for the delay in replying. I don't fully understand the way they were applying Walther's law to deep sea sediments, so will read a bit more about it. And I didn't think the logic was very sound when they suggest that 'layers' traverse numerous 'banks'. The flume tank experiments suggested that for every three or four strata there are lots of layers deposited at an angle in a lateral direction, when you pour a mixture of coarse and fine sand grains into fast flowing water.
Morning Spud,
As i understand it transverse sedimentation only occurs at the waters edge not in deep sea situations and this type of sedimentation can be recognised by geologists and the conditions that were present at that time can therefore be determined.
Still, it showed that if there were continuous transgressions and regressions of the sea over the land during a worldwide flood, caused by tidal movement of the water, then the different sediments could be brought to the same basin in succession and laid down in strata by currents.
What I mean about not seeing the processes in operation today that laid down the sediments of the Colorado plateau, through which the grand canyon was cut, is that the quantity of sediment is too great to have been transported by the usual methods (rivers, wind etc). The Coconino Sandstone, for example, is estimated at 10,000 cubic miles of sand. If that had been laid down over millions of years, why were no other types of sediment laid down among the sandstone strata, and how was it transported?
I am not a geologist but understand it is true to say that the process by which the grand Canyon formed is not well understood and is a subject of debate within standard geology and there are questions still to be answered - but there are certainly questions to be answered with the alternative flood proposal. I do understand that if one has a strong faith that the tendency is to look at sites which present evidence which supports that faith and to get the impression that standard science is crumbling, that somehow it is involved in some big misunderstanding or even a cover up and that the creation scientists are the ones who see the truth and will be shown to be correct. My point to you throughout is when venturing into looking at science to support your beliefs that you need to look at the standard scientific information directly rather than through the eyes of creationist websites who often misrepresent that information and to recognise that these creationist websites usually say that there purpose is to present information which supports the biblical view and hence are not independent. It is good that people present alternative ideas of course but these need to stand up to scientific standards if they are to have any scientific credibility, so it is important to understand the position of those presenting the views and to understand the science more fully rather than to just accept what they say. There are unanswered questions within standard science of course but this doesn't mean standard science is crumbling - trying to address those questions is all part of the scientific method of course.
-
Thanks for watching the video, and sorry for the delay in replying. I don't fully understand the way they were applying Walther's law to deep sea sediments, so will read a bit more about it. And I didn't think the logic was very sound when they suggest that 'layers' traverse numerous 'banks'. The flume tank experiments suggested that for every three or four strata there are lots of layers deposited at an angle in a lateral direction, when you pour a mixture of coarse and fine sand grains into fast flowing water.
Still, it showed that if there were continuous transgressions and regressions of the sea over the land during a worldwide flood, caused by tidal movement of the water, then the different sediments could be brought to the same basin in succession and laid down in strata by currents.
What I mean about not seeing the processes in operation today that laid down the sediments of the Colorado plateau, through which the grand canyon was cut, is that the quantity of sediment is too great to have been transported by the usual methods (rivers, wind etc). The Coconino Sandstone, for example, is estimated at 10,000 cubic miles of sand. If that had been laid down over millions of years, why were no other types of sediment laid down among the sandstone strata, and how was it transported?
Sorry if you said it earlier and I missed you but what are you getting at here?
Are you saying that one of the reasons we should consider for the formation of the Grand Canyon is a flood sent to destroy humanity because the "sons of god" had injected evil DNA into human women which resulted in corrupt and evil babies being born?
-
http://www.icr.org/article/9142 explains why dinosaurs were part of the cargo.
-
Sorry if you said it earlier and I missed you but what are you getting at here?
Are you saying that one of the reasons we should consider for the formation of the Grand Canyon is a flood sent to destroy humanity because the "sons of god" had injected evil DNA into human women which resulted in corrupt and evil babies being born?
Regarding evil DNA, I don't think that's quite what happened. I think it just means that after creation, people began to multiply and have daughters, and the men saw how attractive they were and 'married whoever they wanted', whatever that means. The language is similar to when Eve saw that the forbidden fruit looked good to eat. Looks like they married women for their looks rather than other qualities, so that their children grew up without the fear of the Lord. We are told that the Nephilim were also on the earth at the time when God sent Israel into Canaan to expel the people from it. The people of Canaan practiced the kind of immorality described in Leviticus 18, which caused 'the land to vomit out its inhabitants' because it was defiled (v.25, 28). You could say that the flood was a different mechanism for achieving the same end, on a universal scale.
2 Peter says that the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire. Whether this is the literal burning up of the earth or a symbol for eternal separation from God, it shows that the Flood was a picture of a universal judgment still to come, from which one can be saved by faith in JC.
-
Regarding evil DNA, I don't think that's quite what happened. I think it just means that after creation, people began to multiply and have daughters, and the men saw how attractive they were and 'married whoever they wanted', whatever that means. The language is similar to when Eve saw that the forbidden fruit looked good to eat. Looks like they married women for their looks rather than other qualities, so that their children grew up without the fear of the Lord. We are told that the Nephilim were also on the earth at the time when God sent Israel into Canaan to expel the people from it. The people of Canaan practiced the kind of immorality described in Leviticus 18, which caused 'the land to vomit out its inhabitants' because it was defiled (v.25, 28). You could say that the flood was a different mechanism for achieving the same end, on a universal scale.
2 Peter says that the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire. Whether this is the literal burning up of the earth or a symbol for spiritual separation from God, it shows that the Flood was a picture of a universal judgment still to come, from which one can be saved by faith in JC.
That is fairy tale nonsense! ::)
-
That is fairy tale nonsense! ::)
An essential requirement for the religious-minded!
-
Regarding evil DNA, I don't think that's quite what happened. I think it just means that after creation, people began to multiply and have daughters, and the men saw how attractive they were and 'married whoever they wanted', whatever that means. The language is similar to when Eve saw that the forbidden fruit looked good to eat. Looks like they married women for their looks rather than other qualities, so that their children grew up without the fear of the Lord. We are told that the Nephilim were also on the earth at the time when God sent Israel into Canaan to expel the people from it. The people of Canaan practiced the kind of immorality described in Leviticus 18, which caused 'the land to vomit out its inhabitants' because it was defiled (v.25, 28). You could say that the flood was a different mechanism for achieving the same end, on a universal scale.
2 Peter says that the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire. Whether this is the literal burning up of the earth or a symbol for eternal separation from God, it shows that the Flood was a picture of a universal judgment still to come, from which one can be saved by faith in JC.
I'm sorry but this is really a load of mumbo jumbo.
People have beaten me too it but I find it nigh-on impossible that people still believe this myth in today's day and age.
Let's not mince words: if the story of the Flood is to be believed, God is a moral monster. To say his response to the alleged wickedness of humans is disproportionate is a gross understatement. Moreover, God engages in conduct that we would expect from the worst dictators, namely collective punishment that sweeps in the innocent along with the guilty. Children, presumably, were among those drowned (unless we assume that wicked adults had no offspring) as were most all of the animals, who bore no responsibility whatsoever for the misdeeds of humans. Intentionally drowning a kitten is conduct we'd expect of some psychopathic juvenile, not a loving deity.
Ronald A. Lindsay