Where's the water?

[UppsalaDragby]

So we've established fairly conclusively that you believe the topology of the earth changed during/soon after the flood. So let's get specific. Were the Himalayas in existence prior to the flood? If so, to what degree?

What's your point?

And what was the point you seemed to be trying to make in your previous post?

You remember..the dodgy one I asked you about but about which you are now are completely silent...

Not to mention the question I asked you in another post: Where have I ever describe scientific knowledge as being equivalent to "beliefs"?

I expect ANSERS to my questions.

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I claimed that oil companies use an old-earth geology in their work, and I provided evidence supporting that claim (if you'd like more I can provide it). If your counter is "they could have done the same work using young-earth creationism", then the burden is on you to support that claim.

Nonsense. Not only have you failed to provide "proof" of your claim, you are guilty of the same fallacy that you accuse me of. You totally failed to support your claim that "oil companies used an old-earth geology in their work", and then challenged me to prove the opposite. In other words, "shifting the burdon of proof".
Where is the question I posed:

"Where is your evidence that they are adhering to an old earth model rather than a young earth one, and that it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model?"

So why are you dodging the question (the fourth time) pretending that a conversation between one geologist and another has anything to do with "oil companies" using different models to locate oil and gas? And how does such a discussion discount the possiblity of a global flood? This is getting tiresome...

This (and some of your later stuff I'll get to) is what I meant when I talked about how ridiculous it is to talk to creationists. If you honestly think the above is a valid, objective rebuttal, I'll just let that speak for itself.

In other words you cannot defend your claim, whereas I can. I pointed out exactly why your argument is ridiculous. You cannot do the same thing about mine. If you could you would obviously have done so. Instead you choose a pathetic cop-out.

So let me repeat yet another set of questions that you have totally failed to answer:

"Why is the ONLY thing "copied" a global event. Why not copy other things? Why would Moses, or any of God's chosen people, who considered the scripures to be extremely sacred and were called out by God to be separate from the surrounding nations, just decide to throw in a chunk from some summerian text?"

No answers??? OK, so at least explain why you think that these questions are "ridiculous".

?????????? You gave me a list of how you know what the science is or isn't, such that you are able to declare "the science is against [me]"? What post was that?

#102

This post was a response to your completely foolish claim that "The world around us also serves as God's revelation, and it simply does not show anything supportive of this young-earth flood geology".

I'm not advocating your flood idea. If you're advocating it and claiming it is supported by the science, then you need to answer those questions.

I never said you "advocated" anything. YOU are making the claim, using YOUR arguments, that pre-flood and post-flood strata are missing, WITHOUT explaining what you mean by that. And you have the cheek and audacity to say that creationist arguments are ridiculous!!!

Again, you're being ridiculous. All you're doing is hand-waving and trying to distract from the issue I raised. The fact remains, biostratigraphy does not support the global flood belief. If you think it does, then demonstrate it to be so.

Well again, YOU are the one making the claim. YOU need to be more specific in proving your point - not accusing me of "hand-waving". YOU need ti provide consistent evidence that the fossil record demonstrates what you CLAIM it does.

In other words, YOU cannot simply claim that the fossils are sorted in such a way that it can be used as evidence against a flood without proving that such an order is correct.

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of shifting the blame? Perhaps you need to study some more...

Absolutely, positively, ridiculous. I am literally laughing out loud at this. So if you believe we went from 2-7 individuals representing each "kind" 4,000 years ago, to all the species alive today, by what mechanism were all these new species generated?

Well, allow me to laugh at your pitiful laughter.. why would I need to provide a "mechanism"? Are you advocating evolution of the gaps? You can't even prove that evolution is the "mechanism" that gets the job done, and yet you are, once again, shifting the burdon of proof. As I said, "you cannot simply assume evolution to be true in order to discount a flood".

Get it????

And this is the cherry on the sundae of your ridiculousness. We've sequenced genomes from all sorts of organisms from diverse taxa, and we never, ever, ever see anything indicating an extreme, simultaneous bottleneck. And your response? "Meh...it's not an exact science".

I'll let that speak for itself and serve to illustrate my point about how ridiculous it is to discuss things with creationists. No matter how clearly the data is against you, you just make up excuses to wave it away.

Weeell... It's funny how the "cherry" on my sundae totally defeats yours. The fact is that the only "organism" that has been completely sequenced is the human genome. Before that, proponents of evolution adamently claimed that there is no way the flood could be real because of the diversity of the human race. Recent research refutes that claim:

http://www.icr.org/article/genetics-research-confirms-biblical/

So again, rather than shifting the burden over to me, why not tell us why, after the so called millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did the diversity explode only within the last five thousand years? Because surely, before claiming that genetics is an exact science that proves your point, you need to prove that it does!

 

[River Jordan]

What's your point?

And what was the point you seemed to be trying to make in your previous post?

You're dodging the question. Were the Himalayas in existence prior to the flood? If so, to what degree?

Not to mention the question I asked you in another post: Where have I ever describe scientific knowledge as being equivalent to "beliefs"?

I quoted you directly in my post 123.

Nonsense. Not only have you failed to provide "proof" of your claim, you are guilty of the same fallacy that you accuse me of. You totally failed to support your claim that "oil companies used an old-earth geology in their work", and then challenged me to prove the opposite. In other words, "shifting the burdon of proof".
Where is the question I posed:

"Where is your evidence that they are adhering to an old earth model rather than a young earth one, and that it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model?"

So why are you dodging the question (the fourth time) pretending that a conversation between one geologist and another has anything to do with "oil companies" using different models to locate oil and gas? And how does such a discussion discount the possiblity of a global flood? This is getting tiresome...

I agree, this is ridiculous. I claimed that oil companies utilize old-earth geology in their work, and I supported that claim by posting an exchange between geologists who work for oil companies stating not only that they don't use young-earth geology, but that they couldn't think of one thing about geology that young-earth creationists had told them that turned out to be true.

As I also said, I can further evidence my claim. For example, oil companies also hire paleontologists who employ the framework of biostratigraphy to aid in searching for oil. THIS PAGE describes how this is done, and clearly describes the use of standard, mainstream geology and paleontology. HERE, you can see that the Colombian Petroleum Institute has expended a great deal of resources towards establishing a standard biostratigraphy profile of Columbia. On pages 3, 4, and 5 you can see the time scale that was produced, and it is most definitely old-earth.

We can keep going if you'd like, but the point is made. Petroleum companies utilize an old-earth framework in their exploration activities. If you have an example of any of them using young-earth/flood frameworks then present it. Otherwise my point stands.

In other words you cannot defend your claim, whereas I can. I pointed out exactly why your argument is ridiculous. You cannot do the same thing about mine. If you could you would obviously have done so. Instead you choose a pathetic cop-out.

You've not posted anything to rebut. I've posted evidence supporting the idea that the EoG predates the Hebrew flood story. You've not responded with any counter-evidence or specific reason why the evidence is wrong. All you've done is appeal to "maybe"...maybe the Hebrew story actually predates the EoG. But without any evidence showing that to be the case, all you're doing is appealing to your wishes.

"Why is the ONLY thing "copied" a global event. Why not copy other things? Why would Moses, or any of God's chosen people, who considered the scripures to be extremely sacred and were called out by God to be separate from the surrounding nations, just decide to throw in a chunk from some summerian text?"

Who said the flood was the only thing the Hebrews took from their time in Babylonia? And why does any culture borrow stories from other cultures? It seems to be something cultures do. There's even a term for it: Cultural Appropriation.

#102

Are you just not understanding the point here? You asserted "the science is against you". In order to make such a declaration, you have to be in a position to know what the science is. But given our previous exchanges, I don't see you as someone who is knowledgeable enough in science to be able to speak so authoritatively.

So if you disagree and feel you are qualified to speak authoritatively about the science, please explain how you came to such a place.

I never said you "advocated" anything. YOU are making the claim, using YOUR arguments, that pre-flood and post-flood strata are missing, WITHOUT explaining what you mean by that. And you have the cheek and audacity to say that creationist arguments are ridiculous!!!

What's to explain? Flood sediments have specific characteristics. A global flood should produce distinct and consistent flood sediments in many locations across the globe. Not only that, but if it didn't rain prior to the flood, then there should be no flood sediments below/prior-to the global flood sediments. In the post-flood strata we shouldn't find any fossils (everything had died except what was on the ark).

We don't see anything of the sort.

Well again, YOU are the one making the claim. YOU need to be more specific in proving your point - not accusing me of "hand-waving". YOU need ti provide consistent evidence that the fossil record demonstrates what you CLAIM it does.

The Law of Fossil Succession.

In other words, YOU cannot simply claim that the fossils are sorted in such a way that it can be used as evidence against a flood without proving that such an order is correct.

Oh right...so if the evidence contradicts a global flood, the evidence must be wrong.

Well, allow me to laugh at your pitiful laughter.. why would I need to provide a "mechanism"? Are you advocating evolution of the gaps? You can't even prove that evolution is the "mechanism" that gets the job done, and yet you are, once again, shifting the burdon of proof. As I said, "you cannot simply assume evolution to be true in order to discount a flood".

??????? You're not making even the slightest bit of sense. I'm not "assuming evolution" at all. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of arguing that 4,000 years ago each "kind" was reduced to 2-7 individuals, and since then they produced all the species around us today by natural means. Of course if you just want to invoke a miracle here, then say so.

Weeell... It's funny how the "cherry" on my sundae totally defeats yours. The fact is that the only "organism" that has been completely sequenced is the human genome.

And there ya' go....this is why I question your ability to say things like "the science is against you". Genomes that have been sequenced.

So where's the simultaneous extreme bottleneck?

Before that, proponents of evolution adamently claimed that there is no way the flood could be real because of the diversity of the human race. Recent research refutes that claim:

http://www.icr.org/article/genetics-research-confirms-biblical/

Do you agree with the research by Dr. Tennessen that ICR is referencing?

So again, rather than shifting the burden over to me, why not tell us why, after the so called millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did the diversity explode only within the last five thousand years? Because surely, before claiming that genetics is an exact science that proves your point, you need to prove that it does!

Have you actually read Dr. Tennessen's paper?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You're dodging the question. Were the Himalayas in existence prior to the flood? If so, to what degree?

I'm not dodging the question, you are. I made the point that the topology of the earth changes. Rather than address that point with some kind of argument you simply throw out a question. Why, rather than pose questions don't you simply get to the point, if you have one. You ask one question, I answer that and then you just ask another one... an on it goes.. until the thread just gets increadibly messy and it gets very difficult to understand what was originally said. Why not be concise and just state your argument?

And obviously no one knows to which degree the Himalayas existed prior to the flood, or if they even existed... so questions like that are a complete waste of time. Are you here to waste time? Are you here just to frustrate? Get to the point River.

I quoted you directly in my post 123.

Which particular quote are you referring to?

I agree, this is ridiculous. I claimed that oil companies utilize old-earth geology in their work, and I supported that claim by posting an exchange between geologists who work for oil companies stating not only that they don't use young-earth geology, but that they couldn't think of one thing about geology that young-earth creationists had told them that turned out to be true.

As I also said, I can further evidence my claim. For example, oil companies also hire paleontologists who employ the framework of biostratigraphy to aid in searching for oil. THIS PAGE describes how this is done, and clearly describes the use of standard, mainstream geology and paleontology. HERE, you can see that the Colombian Petroleum Institute has expended a great deal of resources towards establishing a standard biostratigraphy profile of Columbia. On pages 3, 4, and 5 you can see the time scale that was produced, and it is most definitely old-earth.

We can keep going if you'd like, but the point is made. Petroleum companies utilize an old-earth framework in their exploration activities. If you have an example of any of them using young-earth/flood frameworks then present it. Otherwise my point stands.

It is ridiculous because you repeatedly ignore my questions, which completely demolishes your argument. You continuously point out that oil companies utilize an old earth geology in their work, which says nothing more than that oil companies adhere to the prevailing paradigm. So what? That is what anyone would expect. But I asked for more than that! I asked you to point out it how it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model. You haven't explained and so your point, which is that it somehow disproves a global flood, does NOT stand.

You've not posted anything to rebut.

Oh but I have, let me remind you:

1. We have a planet covered in sediments.

2. fossils scattered all over the planet including on all the highest mountains ranges around the globe.

3. HUGE oil deposits exist.

4. HUGE deposits of coal exist.

5. fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures that indicate drowning exist.

6. accounts given by ancient cultures describe a flood.

These were the "claims" that I presented. Your respoinse was: "I don't see any indication at all that your claim is correct

I've posted evidence supporting the idea that the EoG predates the Hebrew flood story. You've not responded with any counter-evidence or specific reason why the evidence is wrong.

Yes I did.

All you've done is appeal to "maybe"...maybe the Hebrew story actually predates the EoG.

No, that's not all I did. I gave you some very good reasons why your argument is weak. Sure, I ALSO pointed out what I said at the very start of our conversation concerning the EoG, namely that there is no conclusive evidence that the story predates that of Genesis, which, if I may remind you again, COMPLETELY REFUTES your original claim which is why I brought it up (something you seem to refuse to acknowledge), but that is not ALL I said.

Who said the flood was the only thing the Hebrews took from their time in Babylonia? And why does any culture borrow stories from other cultures? It seems to be something cultures do. There's even a term for it: Cultural Appropriation.

I didn't ask you whether or not other cultures borrowed stories, and neither did I ask you a fancy name for it. What evidence can you provide that anything in Genesis was borrowed, or copied from the EoG.. or any other culture for that matter?

Are you just not understanding the point here? You asserted "the science is against you". In order to make such a declaration, you have to be in a position to know what the science is. But given our previous exchanges, I don't see you as someone who is knowledgeable enough in science to be able to speak so authoritatively.

So if you disagree and feel you are qualified to speak authoritatively about the science, please explain how you came to such a place.

I am knowledgable in the scientific arguments that I gave. I gave you some points and challenged you to disprove them, which you did not. Therefore this word game.

Flood sediments have specific characteristics. A global flood should produce distinct and consistent flood sediments in many locations across the globe.

OK, let's look at it then. What distinct and consistent flood sediments are missing?

Not only that, but if it didn't rain prior to the flood, then there should be no flood sediments below/prior-to the global flood sediments.

There aren't. If you dig down a mile or so you hit rock.

In the post-flood strata we shouldn't find any fossils (everything had died except what was on the ark).

What "post-flood" strata???

The Law of Fossil Succession.

All that link seems to do is discuss how proponents of an old earth interpret the fossils in the layers. It is hardly evidence against a flood. Now try to do better.

Oh right...so if the evidence contradicts a global flood, the evidence must be wrong.

I never said that did I? Why after having a few rounds with you does the discussion always seem to wind up with you distorting arguments and throwing out infantile exaggerations. You haven't demonstrated that fossils in the strata provide a consistent chronological record of life, which I showed you by pointing out a couple of examples. And this is what I get???

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of arguing that 4,000 years ago each "kind" was reduced to 2-7 individuals, and since then they produced all the species around us today by natural means. Of course if you just want to invoke a miracle here, then say so.

You haven't pointed out any absurdity whatsoever. You cannot simply assume a rate of speciation and they claim that anyone who doesn't make the same assumption is being absurd.

And there ya' go....this is why I question your ability to say things like "the science is against you". Genomes that have been sequenced.

Well you can dismount your high horse River. I never said that everything I say shows that science is against you. This is just another example of how you blow things out of proportion and try to frustrate the discussion. I gave you six points of what I meant about the science being against you. I stand corrected about humans being the only "organism" completely sequenced. But having said that....

How many of the "organisms" listed are you trying to say would have been on the ark?

Do you agree with the research by Dr. Tennessen that ICR is referencing?
Have you actually read Dr. Tennessen's paper?

No. Which of the following papers have you read:

Baker, R. 1979. A Primer of Oilwell Drilling. Petroleum Extension Service, the Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin. 94 pp.

Breard, S.Q., A.D. Callender and M.J. Nault. 1993. Paleoecologic and biostratigraphic models for Pleistocene through Miocene foraminiferal assemblages of the Gulf Coast basin. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Transactions 43: 493-502.

Culver, S.J. 1988. New foraminiferal depth zonation of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Palaios, 3: 69-86.

Davies. E.H. and J.P. Bujak. 1987. Petroleum exploration applications of palynological assemblage successions in the flexure trend, Gulf of Mexico. In Innovative biostratigraphic approaches to sequence analysis: New exploration opportunities. Gulf Coast Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. p. 47-51.

Fleisher, R.L. and H.R. Lane. (eds.). In press. Applied Paleontology, In E.A. Beaumont and N.H. Foster (eds.), Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps, Handbook No. 3, Treatise of Petroleim Geology. American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Galloway, W.E., D.G. Bebout, W.L. Fisher, J.G. Dunlap, Jr., R. C. Cabrera-Castro, J. E. Lugo-Rivera and T.M. Scott. 1991. Cenozoic. In A. Salvador (ed.). The Gulf of Mexico Basin. The Geology of North America Vol. J. p. 245-324.

Haq, B.U. and A. Boersma, (eds.). 1978. Introduction to Marine Micropaleontology. Elsevier, New York. 376 pp.
LeRoy, D.O. 1977. Economic Microbiostratigraphy. In L.W. LeRoy, D.O.LeRoy and J.W. Raese. Subsurface Geology - Petroleum - Mining - Construction. Colorado School of Mines. p.212-233.

Pflum, C.E. and W.E. Frerichs. 1976. Gulf of Mexico Deep-Water Foraminifers. Cushman Foundation for Foraminferal Research, Special Publication No. 14, 125 pp.

Phleger, F.B. and F.L. Parker. 1951. Ecology of foraminifera, northwest Gulf of Mexico. Geological Society of America. Memoir 46, Pt 1. 1-88, Pt. 2, 1-64.

Poag, C.W. 1981. Ecologic Atlas of Benthic Foraminfera of the Gulf of Mexico. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co. 174 pp.

Tipsworth, H.L., F.M. Setzer and F.L. Smith. 1966. Interpretation of depositional environment in Gulf Coast petroleum exploration from paleoecology and related stratigraphy. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Transactions 16: 119-130.
Ventress, W.P.S. 1991. Paleontology and its application in South Louisiana Hydrocarbon Exploration, In D. Goldthwaite. (ed.). An Introduction to Central
Gulf Coast Geology. New Orleans Geological Society p. 85-97.

Baker, R. 1979. A Primer of Oilwell Drilling. Petroleum Extension Service, the Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin. 94 pp.

Breard, S.Q., A.D. Callender and M.J. Nault. 1993. Paleoecologic and biostratigraphic models for Pleistocene through Miocene foraminiferal assemblages of the Gulf Coast basin. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Transactions 43: 493-502.

Culver, S.J. 1988. New foraminiferal depth zonation of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Palaios, 3: 69-86.

Davies. E.H. and J.P. Bujak. 1987. Petroleum exploration applications of palynological assemblage successions in the flexure trend, Gulf of Mexico. In Innovative biostratigraphic approaches to sequence analysis: New exploration opportunities. Gulf Coast Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. p. 47-51.

Fleisher, R.L. and H.R. Lane. (eds.). In press. Applied Paleontology, In E.A. Beaumont and N.H. Foster (eds.), Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps, Handbook No. 3, Treatise of Petroleim Geology. American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Galloway, W.E., D.G. Bebout, W.L. Fisher, J.G. Dunlap, Jr., R. C. Cabrera-Castro, J. E. Lugo-Rivera and T.M. Scott. 1991. Cenozoic. In A. Salvador (ed.).

The Gulf of Mexico Basin. The Geology of North America Vol. J. p. 245-324.

Haq, B.U. and A. Boersma, (eds.). 1978. Introduction to Marine Micropaleontology. Elsevier, New York. 376 pp.

LeRoy, D.O. 1977. Economic Microbiostratigraphy. In L.W. LeRoy, D.O.LeRoy and J.W. Raese. Subsurface Geology - Petroleum - Mining - Construction. Colorado School of Mines. p.212-233.

Pflum, C.E. and W.E. Frerichs. 1976. Gulf of Mexico Deep-Water Foraminifers. Cushman Foundation for Foraminferal Research, Special Publication No. 14, 125 pp.

Phleger, F.B. and F.L. Parker. 1951. Ecology of foraminifera, northwest Gulf of Mexico. Geological Society of America. Memoir 46, Pt 1. 1-88, Pt. 2, 1-64.

Poag, C.W. 1981. Ecologic Atlas of Benthic Foraminfera of the Gulf of Mexico. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co. 174 pp.

Tipsworth, H.L., F.M. Setzer and F.L. Smith. 1966. Interpretation of depositional environment in Gulf Coast petroleum exploration from paleoecology and related stratigraphy. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Transactions 16: 119-130.

Ventress, W.P.S. 1991. Paleontology and its application in South Louisiana Hydrocarbon Exploration, In D. Goldthwaite. (ed.). An Introduction to Central

Gulf Coast Geology. New Orleans Geological Society p. 85-97.

 

[River Jordan]

I'm not dodging the question, you are. I made the point that the topology of the earth changes. Rather than address that point with some kind of argument you simply throw out a question.

Why, rather than pose questions don't you simply get to the point, if you have one.

Ok, I'm going to be honest with you here. This is one of the dumbest, stupidest exchanges I've ever had with anyone. The question is very simple...did the Himalayan Mountains exist prior to the flood? If so, to what extent?

I've already explained my point multiple times in this thread. But apparently I have to explain it again. Significantly changing the topology of the earth (like raising entire mountain ranges) in a short amount of time (like less than 4,000 years) requires an enormous amount of energy. Most of this energy would be given off as heat. Giving off enormous amounts of heat in a very short period of time has direct consequences that render the idea unfeasible. For example, young-earth creationist John Baumgardner estimated that his model of "runaway subduction" would give off 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules. That's enough to boil off the oceans and render the earth uninhabitable.

So, if you are going to claim that the "topology of the earth changed" in any significant way, you have to take these things into consideration.

And obviously no one knows to which degree the Himalayas existed prior to the flood, or if they even existed.

If they didn't exist at all prior to the flood and came into existence since, you have the problems I described above. And we haven't even gotten into the question about the other mountain ranges across the globe. Were the Andes, Rockies, Alps, and Urals post-flood as well?

Which particular quote are you referring to?

"I have also asked you on several occasions to explain why you think the beliefs of the scientific community are a better judge of what happened BEYOND what is testable, repeatable and observable than the biblical account."

It is ridiculous because you repeatedly ignore my questions, which completely demolishes your argument. You continuously point out that oil companies utilize an old earth geology in their work, which says nothing more than that oil companies adhere to the prevailing paradigm. So what? That is what anyone would expect. But I asked for more than that! I asked you to point out it how it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model. You haven't explained and so your point, which is that it somehow disproves a global flood, does NOT stand.

This makes me wonder if there's something wrong with you. I mean, this is just bizarre.

The fact is, oil companies utilize old-earth geology in their exploration work. They don't use young-earth flood geology. If your only answer to that is "so what", then I can't help but wonder why you previously spent so much time disputing the point after I first made it. As far as "how it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model", that's....well...stupid. That's like saying "How do you know they couldn't still have successfully landed on the moon if they believed it was made of cheese?"

If this is the best you can do...then I feel sorry for you.

1. We have a planet covered in sediments.

2. fossils scattered all over the planet including on all the highest mountains ranges around the globe.

3. HUGE oil deposits exist.

4. HUGE deposits of coal exist.

1. Too vague to be of any use. What sort of sediments? Do they all share the same environment of deposition? Are they interspersed with non-flood sediments, such as aeolian deposits? Are there any unconformities within them?

2. Again, too vague to be of any use. How are the fossils arranged? Are they found in an order that is consistent with a global flood? For example, are modern and ancient organisms all mixed in together? Are human remains and/or artifacts found mixed in with say, dinosaur fossils? As far as mountain ranges, how does that work for a global flood exactly? Are you saying the flood waters were above the mountains, and during the flood the organisms moved to the mountains, were buried, fossilized, and then subsequently exposed? Or are you saying the strata at the tops of these mountains were somewhere else during the flood?

3-4. Non sequitur. "Huge deposits of oil and coal exist, therefore the entire earth was flooded 4,000 years ago"? Come on UD, surely you can do better.

5. fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures that indicate drowning exist.

All of them? If not, what percentage?

6. accounts given by ancient cultures describe a flood.

And....? A lot of cultures have stories about volcanoes, earthquakes, and/or fires. Floods happen, even today...sometimes rather big ones. Given that, plus the fact that humans tend to settle on flood plains (good farming), why is it surprising to find stories about floods?

Yes I did.

No, that's not all I did. I gave you some very good reasons why your argument is weak. Sure, I ALSO pointed out what I said at the very start of our conversation concerning the EoG, namely that there is no conclusive evidence that the story predates that of Genesis, which, if I may remind you again, COMPLETELY REFUTES your original claim which is why I brought it up (something you seem to refuse to acknowledge), but that is not ALL I said.


I didn't ask you whether or not other cultures borrowed stories, and neither did I ask you a fancy name for it. What evidence can you provide that anything in Genesis was borrowed, or copied from the EoG.. or any other culture for that matter?

Again, I'm sorry but you're not doing yourself any favors here.

The facts are, there is no record of any Hebrew flood story prior to their time in Babylon (around 597-582 BC). OTOH, tablets with portions of the Epic of Gilgamesh story have been found that date to 2000 BC. Thus we have Hebrews with apparently no flood story get exiled to Babylon (597-582 BC), a culture with a pre-existing flood story, and the Hebrews come out of that exile with a flood story that is very similar to the Babylonian story (Torah written around 530 BC).

Not only that, but, the majority of Biblical scholars believe that Torah itself was a product of the Babylonian exilic period. LINK.

Now is it possible that this view is wrong and the Hebrew flood story actually predates the EoG? Sure, it's possible. But in the absence of any evidence supporting that idea, there's no evidentiary reason to go that route.

I am knowledgable in the scientific arguments that I gave.

Actually, the evidence shows you're not. And given that all you've done is post an empty assertion, it can be summarily dismissed. To be honest, I see someone who knows how to parrot creationist talking points but is completely out of his element when it comes to tackling actual science.

OK, let's look at it then. What distinct and consistent flood sediments are missing?

Not only that, but if it didn't rain prior to the flood, then there should be no flood sediments below/prior-to the global flood sediments.

There aren't. If you dig down a mile or so you hit rock.

What "post-flood" strata???

There is no uniform, consistent sediment layer across the globe. The sediment layers that are consistent with flood deposits all also indicate localized flooding of varying types. We have coastal subduction zones, small-scale stream flood sediments, large river floodplain sediments, aeolian sediments, layers that are associated with salt water environments, layers that are associated with freshwater environments, sediments that have clearly defined volcanic ash layers between them, sedimentary rock with footprints and other trace fossils in them....

And are you saying that all the lithified strata are pre-flood? IOW, if it's rock it's pre-flood? Also, are you saying there are no post-flood strata?

All that link seems to do is discuss how proponents of an old earth interpret the fossils in the layers. It is hardly evidence against a flood. Now try to do better.

Again, this is just stupid. It's like you're not even bothering to think about and then respond intelligently, and are just posting your knee-jerk "No it isn't" reactions. It's like trying to have a discussion with a 3-year old. If every time I provide a link or citation to a scientific resource you're just going to wave it away with "Meh...that's just how old earth people interpret things", then just say so and I'll stop wasting my time looking this stuff up.

You haven't demonstrated that fossils in the strata provide a consistent chronological record of life, which I showed you by pointing out a couple of examples.

Yes I have. You just reflexively waved it away.

You haven't pointed out any absurdity whatsoever. You cannot simply assume a rate of speciation and they claim that anyone who doesn't make the same assumption is being absurd.

Well, given that you absolutely refuse to post any specifics about what you believe went on with the flood, all I can do is assume. If my assumption that your belief entails going from 2-7 representatives of each "kind" to all the species alive today in less than 4,000 years is wrong, then don't just say "That's wrong"; correct my error by posting what you're actually advocating.

As it stands you're just playing this little game where you complain when I base my arguments on standard young-earth creationist flood beliefs, while at the same time refusing to lay out exactly what you actually believe. IOW, you just sit back and say "That's not what I believe", "That's not what I said", over and over, but never bother to say what you believe. Looks to me like you're kinda scared to lay your cards out on the table.

Well you can dismount your high horse River. I never said that everything I say shows that science is against you. This is just another example of how you blow things out of proportion and try to frustrate the discussion. I gave you six points of what I meant about the science being against you. I stand corrected about humans being the only "organism" completely sequenced. But having said that....

How many of the "organisms" listed are you trying to say would have been on the ark?

Someone who asserts "The science is against you" and subsequently demonstrates that they don't know even the basics of the science being discussed has negated their own assumption of expertise.

And rather than me trying to guess at how many organisms you believe were on the ark, or going to a creationist website and using their estimates (only to have you respond "That's not what I believe"), how about you just say how many you think were on the ark?

No. Which of the following papers have you read

So you haven't read the paper you and your creationist source relied on, nor do you agree with what it says. This just gets more and more bizarre with each post.

And I don't recall having read any of the papers you listed.

 

[Wormwood]

Nobody said he isn't doing work in biochemistry. My point is, if he has specific, scientific criticisms of the work conducted by origins researchers, why is he going to the media and creationist websites with those criticisms, rather than getting the published in the relevant scientific journals?

Yeah, there are tons of scientific journals out there looking to publish the views of scientists that defend creationism. You should ask your professors about the likelihood of your university hiring a PhD in your field if they openly defended a creationist worldview. You seem to be far more sympathetic to the plight of discrimination towards homosexuals than you are intellectuals who believe in creationism. Although, Im sure in your mind Im just buying into the rhetoric of creationists and the accounts of such issues are all misrepresented.

Do I need to pull up all the origins research on protocells?

The article I was referring to by Raz was responding to protocell research in the medical field. It was not an origins of life project he was referencing.

To be blunt, who cares what creationists think about origins research? Geocentrists argue that NASA's work doesn't support their claims of heliocentricity. Does anyone care? I mean, of course creationists are going to say "That doesn't support your claims". They're always going to say that, no matter what.

Yes, and evolutionists will always infer a natural process for the formation of life and development of species. There are assumptions on both sides. I don't know that the assumption of intelligence behind origins is any more prohibitive to scientific study as the assumption of an entirely naturalistic process. Both are filters through which the evidence is filtered. It seems you feel the more intellectual road is to view things naturalistically. Again, I find this to be curious for one would accept the miraculous stories of the Bible as historical.

The only thing I'm not clear on is if you think the flood happened within the last 10,000 years.

My very sincere answer is, "I do not know, and I do not see this as a significant issue in the Christian faith." Maybe scientists will one day discover a new dating method that changes the entire landscape of this discussion to a much younger earth. Maybe they will not. Either way, the Bible was not written with a timeline in it and does not argue for any specific date of the flood narrative. I feel like if God thought this were an important element for our faith, such details would have been provided. NT writers pointed to the flood as a real, historical event that foreshadowed God's universal judgment that people must be prepared for at the coming of Christ. I think we should focus less on dates, and more on preparing ourselves for the appearing of Christ.

It has everything to do with the discussion. If your position is that absent a clear indication of parable or poetic metaphor we must take the passage as is, with no consideration of any extra-scriptural information at all, then we have to believe things like seeing the entire earth from a mountaintop, bird blood curing leprosy, cotton-poly blends being an abomination, and stars falling to the surface of the earth. You can't have it both ways.

I do not have the time to present a hermeneutics class for you in these responses. I assure you I am not trying to have things both ways. I believe apocalyptic literature and prophetic visions are a type of literature that are intrinsically metaphorical and were read as such by the intended audience. We see such language in apocalyptic writings in extra-biblical literature. I would encourage you to read some of my posts here on "Defending Amillennialism." Also, these prophetic images and the commands of God to Israel about their covenant regulations (diet, dress, work habits, purification rites, etc.) are a very different issue. Yes, they were not to eat shellfish or pork and so forth as part of their covenant relationship with God. I do not read such commands as metaphorical (nor do orthodox Jews today). I am not being inconsistent in my hermeneutics.

You're missing the point. You very clearly stated that God would not use myth as a means to communicate. Yet the parables of Jesus were not depictions of actual events, i.e., they are myths.

I am not missing the point. I am saying that God would not have a story recorded as a historical event that never actually happened just to communicate a teaching point. There is a difference with Jesus utilizing a rabbinic teaching method that everyone in the audience knows is a parabolic story created to communicate a point and claiming that Biblical narratives are not historical events. Based on your argument, why not argue (as some do) that the entire life of Jesus was just a made-up story to communicate love, forgiveness and sacrifice? You have no consistency in your interpretation of Scripture other than what seems most intellectual and scientifically expedient. The issue here is, "How would the first readers have understood this message?" I think anyone reading any of Jesus' parables in the first century would have understood them to be teaching stories. I do not think any Hebrews in the ancient near east understood the narratives of the Genesis account as teaching stories with no relation to actual events. There is no historical evidence that early Jews understood the Torah in this manner....specifically the Genesis account. I think the burden of evidence is on you to show otherwise.

This again shows a very fundamentalist way of thinking. Only two extreme possibilities...either it is a completely true word of God, or it is just "random jottings"...very black/white, absolutist thinking, which is typical of fundamentalism.

I was responding to your implication that the Hebrews who wrote the scriptures were influenced by human and cultural limitations. I believe the Scriptures are a product of God's Spirit which it very different from other forms of literature that are merely human reflections, or culture-bound moral stories. Lets keep the comments in context.

I found this quote to be very pertinent to those reading this conversation in regards to the historical reliability of the Scriptures.

What the advocates of this stance toward Scripture fail to observe is that it is fundamentally dishonest to adopt the line of least resistance in the face of difficulty and say to the rationalistic skeptic, “Okay, in this instance you may be right. But I still have a right to hang on to my faith, no matter how many technical errors you may be able to discover in the text of the Bible.” He who assumes such a position of intellectual surrender can only be classed as a weak-kneed irrationalist who has retreated into his own shell of subjectivity. He no longer has anything meaningful to contribute in the arena of debate and intelligent consideration, which all thinking men are responsible to engage in.

It is morally indefensible to put down the Bible—which presents itself as the uniquely authoritative Word of God—as the object of man’s critical judgment so that one may decide (at least for himself personally) which parts of Scripture he may accept as binding on him and which parts he may safely disregard. To treat the Bible in this way is to trifle with God, and it can only result in a process of progressive stultification and a steady loss of theological certainty and moral conviction. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that the plea to shy away from the defense of the accuracy and trustworthiness of Scripture whenever it is attacked on factual matters is hardly to be distinguished in principle from a policy of defending and adhering to the moral standards laid down in Scripture only when they do not conflict with modern standards of morality or when in one’s personal life they do not conflict with what the professing Christian wants to do (whether or not it is the will of God).

Times of testing come into the life of every believer, when he has to choose between the hard, flesh-denying way of obedience, of integrity before God and man, and the way of self-indulgence, of giving in to the temptation to do what is easiest and pleasant from the standpoint of the self-seeking ego. He who does not put up a determined resistance against the seductively easy, flesh-pleasing way will find that he has lost his integrity, self-respect, and, indeed (apart from abject repentance and a complete reversal of direction), all hope of salvation. There is a clear analogy between this flabby response to the challenge of self-will to the moral integrity of a Christian believer and the response that he makes to a challenge to the inerrant authority and complete trustworthiness of the written Word of God. If he casts his lot with the easy way of bland concession, hoping to salvage his position as a Christian by retaining his faith in the fundamentals of Christian doctrine, he will find that in the long run this policy of giving in to the enemy will lead to the complete takeover of his homeland by the foe. His failure to put up a credible defense of Scripture will finally result in his loss of its assurance and comfort in the times of crisis and danger that await him.


Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 26–27.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Ok, I'm going to be honest with you here. This is one of the dumbest, stupidest exchanges I've ever had with anyone. The question is very simple...did the Himalayan Mountains exist prior to the flood? If so, to what extent?

Well you can resort to insults all you want little friend, but the fact is I have already answered that question, so stop pretending that I haven't. Who are you trying to fool?

I've already explained my point multiple times in this thread. But apparently I have to explain it again. Significantly changing the topology of the earth (like raising entire mountain ranges) in a short amount of time (like less than 4,000 years) requires an enormous amount of energy. Most of this energy would be given off as heat. Giving off enormous amounts of heat in a very short period of time has direct consequences that render the idea unfeasible. For example, young-earth creationist John Baumgardner estimated that his model of "runaway subduction" would give off 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules. That's enough to boil off the oceans and render the earth uninhabitable.

And I have already dismissed that point as being unreasonable since we don't know exactly what conditions prevailed on the earth in the pre-flood world. I expect some of this calculation involves moving dry hard mountainous rock, because all flood critics look at the earth today, pull out their calculators and declare that a flood was impossible. What we see in mountains today is evidence of maleable, bent and buckled layers which indicates that the sediments at that time were soft, not hard. And what was the "short period of time" you mentioned?

It is also possible that much of the initial heat was blown out into space. Perhaps that's why we are finding fossils on meterorites and on the surface of the moon. In any case, I'm not a physicist and neither are you, so stop pretending. I am not a creationist because I have a complete working flood model and have personally worked out all the physics involved and checked out all the claims made on either side.

"I have also asked you on several occasions to explain why you think the beliefs of the scientific community are a better judge of what happened BEYOND what is testable, repeatable and observable than the biblical account."

Where in the above comment have I said that scientific knowledge is equivalent to beliefs? Knowledge has to do with known facts, nothing theoretical, nothing believed. So please stop twisting my words. This is a very bad habit that you have.

Much of what you argue here is based on deceptively portraying anyone who is critical of the prevailing scientific dogmas in an unfavourable light. Try to be honest instead. Despite the fact that the majority of scientists aren't concerned about these kinds of issues, you keep perpetrating these blue-eyed arguments as though you honestly think they do. Most of them are too busy collecting data, running lab tests and performing other relatively menial tasks to be bothered with the undelying paradigm. This you ignore completely for the benefit of being able to have a silly rant. And it is ususally the same tricks over and over again. Claiming that I have a "game".. posting 10 or so question marks ?????????? .. rolling your eyes more and more as you pretend to be amazed at how ridiculous my lack of scientific understanding is... and each time you pretend to be more and more shocked! That's YOUR game!

Now what I said in the above quote is not ridiculous. It identifies the root of the problem in this debate. YOU might be impressed with the amount of accumulated knowledge that scientists have amassed. Wow, if anyone knows what happened in the distant past then surely they would! Surely they've got it all figured out! And despite the fact that scientists being wrong is itself a scientific fact, you continue with your rants as thought they cannot be. I don't oppose the idea that what is "testable, repeatable and observable" (which I mentioned in that comment as you can clearly see) can be considered "scientific knowledge", which is why I included those words! But a paradigm built on things that are not testable, not repeatable and not observable, is NOT scientific knowledge.

The fact is, oil companies utilize old-earth geology in their exploration work. They don't use young-earth flood geology. If your only answer to that is "so what", then I can't help but wonder why you previously spent so much time disputing the point after I first made it. As far as "how it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model", that's....well...stupid. That's like saying "How do you know they couldn't still have successfully landed on the moon if they believed it was made of cheese?"

Oil companies aren't concerned with either old-earth geology or young-earth geology. Oil companies use the services of geologists and paleontologists in order to locate oil! Geologists and paleontologists are taught to interpret what they find according to the old-earth paradigm, so saying that oil companies use old earth geology in their work is nothing more than resorting to an argument from popularity.

That is why I asked the question that I did. Instead of anwering it you just claim that it is stupid. It's not stupid, because it forces you to resort to something other than logical fallacies.

So... my question goes unanwered! And all River can do, as usual, is resort to insults...

1. Too vague to be of any use. What sort of sediments? Do they all share the same environment of deposition? Are they interspersed with non-flood sediments, such as aeolian deposits? Are there any unconformities within them?

That's a little too evasive for me. From my perspective, your arguments are too vague to be of any use, and there are also all kinds of unconformities in the evolutionist paradigm. Just as I pointed out before, the standard you use to dismiss creationist arguments work just as well against your own arguments.

2. Again, too vague to be of any use.

Oh, big surprise!

How are the fossils arranged? Are they found in an order that is consistent with a global flood?

I think they do if the flood started along the ridges on the ocean floor and then moved towards land. Low sea-dwelling creatures would be burried first, followed by mid sea-dwelling creatures, followed by creatures that dwellt along the shore-lines and then land-dwelling animals. Coincidentally, that just happens to the the chronological order that evolutionists claim life evolved.

For example, are modern and ancient organisms all mixed in together? Are human remains and/or artifacts found mixed in with say, dinosaur fossils?

Modern and ancient? Another attempt to use evolutionary assumptions to disprove the flood? When will it ever stop?

What human population are you talking about? What dinosaurs whould have been living in close proximity to humans? As far as I know there are only a couple of thousand dinosaur fossils found, and human fossils are extremely scarce. Also, many of these dinosaur fossils were found in so-called "graveyards" where they are grouped together. If you think that is where people were gathering during the flood then please provide your arguments and we can discuss that too.

As far as mountain ranges, how does that work for a global flood exactly? Are you saying the flood waters were above the mountains, and during the flood the organisms moved to the mountains, were buried, fossilized, and then subsequently exposed? Or are you saying the strata at the tops of these mountains were somewhere else during the flood?

I'm not "saying" anything. I have already explained that I don't know what the preflood world looked like, and here you are trying to be clever by asking me a whole lot of questions about something no one knows. Any why would I think there would be strata at the tops of the mountains? What supposedly formed that strata?

3-4. Non sequitur. "Huge deposits of oil and coal exist, therefore the entire earth was flooded 4,000 years ago"? Come on UD, surely you can do better.

Well River, you can also do better. Again you throw out a silly comment in an attempt to missrepresent what I have said. I have submitted oil and coal deposit as something that would be consistent with a catastrophic event such as a global flood. If such deposits did not exist then you would be asking me why such evidence is missing.

Now I have given you evidence, not proof. YOU claimed that there was NO evidence. Now you are twisting things around and trying to make it look as though I am saying something that I never said.

All of them? If not, what percentage?

Not all of them, but "many"... according to this article in NewScientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html#.U7KRbU2KD6U

"Recreating the spectacular pose many dinosaurs adopted in death might involve following the simplest of instructions: just add water.

When palaeontologists are lucky enough to find a complete dinosaur skeleton – whether it be a tiny Sinosauropteryx or an enormous Apatosaurus – there's a good chance it will be found with its head thrown backwards and its tail arched upwards – technically known as the opisthotonic death pose."

And....? A lot of cultures have stories about volcanoes, earthquakes, and/or fires. Floods happen, even today...sometimes rather big ones. Given that, plus the fact that humans tend to settle on flood plains (good farming), why is it surprising to find stories about floods?

Well that was a quick handwave from River Jordan...

Sure, they have stories about catastrophies, but it isn't merely the fact that other flood stories existed. There are many other similarities in these stories that coincide with the biblical account:

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends.jpg

If you can do the same things with stories about volcanoes, or earthquakes, or fires... then just let me know.

Again, I'm sorry but you're not doing yourself any favors here.

If I need you to tell me how well I'm doing then I'll let you know.

The facts are, there is no record of any Hebrew flood story prior to their time in Babylon (around 597-582 BC). OTOH, tablets with portions of the Epic of Gilgamesh story have been found that date to 2000 BC. Thus we have Hebrews with apparently no flood story get exiled to Babylon (597-582 BC), a culture with a pre-existing flood story, and the Hebrews come out of that exile with a flood story that is very similar to the Babylonian story (Torah written around 530 BC).

Not only that, but, the majority of Biblical scholars believe that Torah itself was a product of the Babylonian exilic period. LINK.
Now is it possible that this view is wrong and the Hebrew flood story actually predates the EoG? Sure, it's possible. But in the absence of any evidence supporting that idea, there's no evidentiary reason to go that route.

According to Jesus the scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets.

Who are you going to believe? Jesus? Or what "scholars believe"? I asked you for evidence that the account was copied or borrowed, not for what scholars believe.

Actually, the evidence shows you're not. And given that all you've done is post an empty assertion, it can be summarily dismissed. To be honest, I see someone who knows how to parrot creationist talking points but is completely out of his element when it comes to tackling actual science.

To me that is just worthless debating rhetoric. What have I said that you have scientifically disproven (apart from one slip up concerning genome sequencing which I clearly admitted was wrong)? Now if you are going to continue this discusion by throwing out silly, rhetorical remarks then don't expect me to sit by and tolerate it. You clean up your act or we can both spend our time poking tongues at each other. Believe me, I can do that too.

"There is no uniform, consistent sediment layer across the globe."

Why would there be? If the flood waters traversed through and carried with it sediments from different kinds of rocks then it would produce layers. Here is a how it works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzHU9VsliQ

"And are you saying that all the lithified strata are pre-flood? IOW, if it's rock it's pre-flood?"

Where did I say any of those things?

"Also, are you saying there are no post-flood strata?"

Why would there be?

"Again, this is just stupid. It's like you're not even bothering to think about and then respond intelligently, and are just posting your knee-jerk "No it isn't" reactions. It's like trying to have a discussion with a 3-year old. If every time I provide a link or citation to a scientific resource you're just going to wave it away with "Meh...that's just how old earth people interpret things", then just say so and I'll stop wasting my time looking this stuff up."

If you're going to get silly about this then don't expect me to play along with your games. All you ever seem to do is declare that whatever mainstream science believes is the gospel truth and anyone who questions that position is a knee-jerking 3-year old. Why should anyone bother being critical about what scientists are telling us? Why not just join hands with River Jordan and go along with the flow?

You are the one acting like a 3-year old going off on a tantrum like that.

"Yes I have. You just reflexively waved it away."

No you haven't. You merely provide a link to a page that basically lays out what evolutionists believe and expect me to swallow it whole. Anyone who doesn't do that, according to you, is "anti-science" and uses "ridiculous" arguments.

"Someone who asserts "The science is against you" and subsequently demonstrates that they don't know even the basics of the science being discussed has negated their own assumption of expertise."

In the arguments I have used so far, what "basics of the science" don't I understand?

"And rather than me trying to guess at how many organisms you believe were on the ark, or going to a creationist website and using their estimates (only to have you respond "That's not what I believe"), how about you just say how many you think were on the ark?"

Did I ever say I know how many kinds of animals were on the ark?

"And I don't recall having read any of the papers you listed."

So you haven't read the papers you and your evolutionist sources rely on?

 

[River Jordan]

Yeah, there are tons of scientific journals out there looking to publish the views of scientists that defend creationism. You should ask your professors about the likelihood of your university hiring a PhD in your field if they openly defended a creationist worldview. You seem to be far more sympathetic to the plight of discrimination towards homosexuals than you are intellectuals who believe in creationism. Although, Im sure in your mind Im just buying into the rhetoric of creationists and the accounts of such issues are all misrepresented.

Has he tried? It's one thing to say "Oh, those evolutionists are actively conspiring against us creationists"; it's something else entirely to prove it. All he has to do is write up his scientific case, submit it to some journals, and if they reject it for arbitrary, non-scientific reasons it will be evident in the rejection letters. But he doesn't even try.

That's what I mean by "throwing rocks from the sidelines". He's basically claiming that he has the game to beat the best team in the world all by himself, but when someone says "Why don't you get on the field" he say "Aw...they'll never let me". And of course when asked "Have you asked or tried to get in" he can only say "No". IOW, all talk.

Yes, and evolutionists will always infer a natural process for the formation of life and development of species.

That's science. Do you appreciate why "God did it" can't be an accepted explanation for things in science?

It seems you feel the more intellectual road is to view things naturalistically. Again, I find this to be curious for one would accept the miraculous stories of the Bible as historical.

When discussing science, yes. It has to be that way. Do you understand why?

My very sincere answer is, "I do not know, and I do not see this as a significant issue in the Christian faith."

Then there's no point in further discussing the scientific issues.

I do not have the time to present a hermeneutics class for you in these responses. I assure you I am not trying to have things both ways. I believe apocalyptic literature and prophetic visions are a type of literature that are intrinsically metaphorical and were read as such by the intended audience. We see such language in apocalyptic writings in extra-biblical literature. I would encourage you to read some of my posts here on "Defending Amillennialism." Also, these prophetic images and the commands of God to Israel about their covenant regulations (diet, dress, work habits, purification rites, etc.) are a very different issue. Yes, they were not to eat shellfish or pork and so forth as part of their covenant relationship with God. I do not read such commands as metaphorical (nor do orthodox Jews today). I am not being inconsistent in my hermeneutics.

Do you believe there is a mountain from which all the kingdoms of the earth can be seen simultaneously?

I am not missing the point. I am saying that God would not have a story recorded as a historical event that never actually happened just to communicate a teaching point.

What do you mean "recorded as a historical event"?

I was responding to your implication that the Hebrews who wrote the scriptures were influenced by human and cultural limitations. I believe the Scriptures are a product of God's Spirit which it very different from other forms of literature that are merely human reflections, or culture-bound moral stories. Lets keep the comments in context.

I think we covered the primary difference between us earlier in this thread and we keep going around and around it. Basically I am not married to the idea that all the scriptures "are a product of God's spirit". I think some parts of scripture are (namely the parts that pertain to spiritual matters), and other parts are a collection of other literary genres. And yes, I think those things were influenced by other cultures that the Hebrews had contact with. Thus, it's not the slightest bit difficult for me to reconcile the knowledge I have of the world around me with how the Bible describes the flood.

For me this is a much more comfortable place to be because it's as objective and open as possible. IOW, there's nothing in the way I approach this that dictates a specific outcome. I don't have to go out and look through geologic layers and interpret them through the lens of "I believe the flood happened literally, therefore I have to make this data fit with that". From what I see from you guys though is a much more restrictive, absolutist framework where everything must conform to your beliefs, no exceptions or changes allowed. That's just not me.

I found this quote to be very pertinent to those reading this conversation in regards to the historical reliability of the Scriptures.

Thanks for posting that. It really describes very well what's behind the fundamentalist approach that I've been describing....fear. Archer lays out the fear that if you interpret even one part of scripture outside the fundamentalist framework, then surely you're started down the slippery slope towards non-belief. Thus it is far safer to just dogmatically cling to the absolutist position.

Again, not everyone thinks that way or is so afraid to think for themselves.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Uppsala,

If you have no idea what the pre-flood earth was like, how many "kinds" were on the ark, what the genetic data is, or well....pretty much any other specific detail about the flood, there really isn't much to discuss. Not only that, but since it's clear that whenever I provide information from non-creationist sources you'll just wave it away as "that's just what evolutionists believe", there's no point in continuing to go through the effort of looking it up and posting it.

When you actually have some sort of idea of what it is you believed happened, let me know.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

If you have no idea what the pre-flood earth was like, how many "kinds" were on the ark, what the genetic data is, or well....pretty much any other specific detail about the flood, there really isn't much to discuss. Not only that, but since it's clear that whenever I provide information from non-creationist sources you'll just wave it away as "that's just what evolutionists believe", there's no point in continuing to go through the effort of looking it up and posting it.

When you actually have some sort of idea of what it is you believed happened, let me know.

Are these your closing remarks?

If not then please address my points.

Otherwise, when you think you are knowlegeable enough to prove to me what conditions existed 6,000 years ago then let me know (sorry, I don't count consensus about things that have never be observed or tested as "scientific knowledge"). So don't demand anything of me that you cannot provide yourself.

With that I won't bother pointing out the hypocrisy in the rest of your comments (unless you want me to... just let me know). In the meantime why not just take a couple of steps back and show a little humility, instead of coming here and acting like someone in their twenties who thinks they have enough under their belts to act like a know-it-all just because they suck up everything they are taught without displaying the slightest trace of critical thinking. I'm sorry, I don't have much patience with people with snotty attitudes. But good luck anyway.

 

[Wormwood]

Has he tried?

These things are well documented. In any event, I am not him so I cannot answer for what he has or has not done. My point was, scientific journals want nothing to do with creationism concepts. You know better.

That's science. Do you appreciate why "God did it" can't be an accepted explanation for things in science?

Yes more of the circular reasoning. Creationists are urged to show their rationale for origins scientifically. When attempted, it is declared that sciences is innately naturalistic and so creationists can take a hike. I think you just substantiated my above point about the scientific journals. PS, creationists aren't claiming "God did it" so don't study things scientifically. You have been duped by a secularist agenda. Early scientists were primarily Christian who understood that the created order was rational, built on laws and designed to be understood and explored. Now, suddenly faith and science are seen as opposites. Amazing that you can draw such a conclusion based on the history of scientific inquiry. Some of the most brilliant scientists who laid the foundation of scientific study as we know it would laugh at your reasoning. Rightly so.

When discussing science, yes. It has to be that way. Do you understand why?

No, and neither did early scientists. No one is saying that we do not explore the facts and concepts as they are found. Nor is anyone saying that we just attribute everything in life to magical events we cannot search out or discover. I am talking about foundational principles behind rationality and the goal and purpose of science. Your view has the goal and purpose of science is the glorification of man's self-derived rationality. I view science
s purpose and goal is the exploration of God's discoverable universe on the basis of divinely gifted rationality for the purpose of worshipping his supreme intelligence.

What do you mean "recorded as a historical event"?

I mean it was written in such a way as to indicate the author was communicating an actual event that corresponded to history. Quite the opposite of the idea that the story was borrowed and made up to make a point about the Israelites God in contrast to the Babylonian gods. Now we can argue about the literature of the narrative and how literally we want to view this narrative retelling of the event. That is fine. But in my estimation, there is simply nothing in the story or in the teaching use of this story by other inspired authors that would indicate that this is a localized judgment.

Do you believe there is a mountain from which all the kingdoms of the earth can be seen simultaneously?

No. I believe 1) Satan's temptation of Christ included supernatural elements that we don't really understand entirely (teleporting him to mountains, the pinnacle of the temple, Christ as a human interacting with a spiritual being: for instance...did Satan really "speak"? Does speaking require vocal cords and does this mean he took a physical form? (I don't think the text implies such strict analysis), etc.) 2) clearly the early author and readers would recognize that human vision only permits someone to see a limited distance even upon standing on a very high mountain...this narrative of the temptation is not meant to be a scientific and naturalistic event...clearly, 3) I never claimed the narratives of the Bible were written in scientific terms, but employ literary devices to communicate various concepts.

I have never claimed that we should try to put all the narratives in a test tube and examine them scientifically. I am not claiming that about the Genesis flood..as I have said repeatedly. Please understand the difference between reading something in a way to allow the natural use of language to communicate ideas that may not be intended to be examined scientifically and claiming that the entire story was fabricated. I am fine if we want to say the temptation of Christ was supernatural or that there is some symbolic language (maybe "world" is referring to the known world/Roman Empire at the time). I am not fine with saying the entire event was made up by the author or borrowed from a pagan religion because it cannot be demonstrated in a scientists lab. Do you see the difference here?

Archer lays out the fear that if you interpret even one part of scripture outside the fundamentalist framework, then surely you're started down the slippery slope towards non-belief.

No, I think Archer is drawing rational conclusions that such hermeneutical methods you employ ultimately make you the sovereign authority over Scripture to take and choose what suits you. You have displayed no consistent hermeneutical rationale to suggest otherwise. You seem to take and leave things in Scripture as they suit you.

 

[River Jordan]

Are these your closing remarks?

Unless you're ready to advocate an actual reasonably specific flood scenario, then yes. If all you have are a bunch of "I don't know" and "I never said that" for answers, then there's nothing really to discuss.

These things are well documented. In any event, I am not him so I cannot answer for what he has or has not done. My point was, scientific journals want nothing to do with creationism concepts. You know better.

Nope, sorry...your say-so isn't enough. If he's actually submitted valid scientific arguments to a scientific journal and had them arbitrarily rejected, then he will have evidence of that. No evidence = no basis for your claims.

And keep in mind, I both participate and know many others who are involved in the peer review process. If Dr. Fuz sends us a manuscript that has valid scientific arguments that are supported by the data, no one is going to be like "Yeah, but he's a creationist, so we can't publish this". And if you look at his background, he's been published before. But oddly enough, when it comes to his creationist claims, suddenly he decides to take those out on the road and present them to church groups. Funny that.

Yes more of the circular reasoning. Creationists are urged to show their rationale for origins scientifically.

Um...no. You have it precisely backwards. If creationists kept their beliefs in the realm of religion, there really wouldn't be much of an issue. It'd be like Hindus or Native Americans with their beliefs about origins...they'd believe what they believe and science would continue doing what it does.

But no...Christian creationists in the US aren't content with that. They deliberately dress up their beliefs about origins to make them look scientifically valid. They create their own journals, pay people with PhD's to make scientific-sounding arguments, build fake museums, expend substantial resources on political and social lobbying to change public school science curricula, challenge scientists to debates, and so on and so on. IOW, it's not like the creationists are off minding their own business being entirely religious and the scientific community comes busting in and is like "Hey! Where's the science behind all this?" Nope, it's the exact opposite. Creationists are the ones claiming to have scientific support for their beliefs, so in response the scientific community says "Ok, show us". Of course creationists totally fail at that, but nevertheless go and demand schools teach their beliefs in science classes anyways!

When attempted, it is declared that sciences is innately naturalistic and so creationists can take a hike. I think you just substantiated my above point about the scientific journals.

You're conflating creationists with creationism. Creationists can, and do, conduct science and publish their results in journals all the time. And I'm not sure what your point is here...it almost seems self-contradicting. On one hand you're complaining about science being "inherently naturalistic", but on the other you're seemingly claiming that creationist arguments don't invoke the supernatural. If they don't invoke the supernatural, then why would creationism be excluded because science is "inherently naturalistic"?

PS, creationists aren't claiming "God did it" so don't study things scientifically. You have been duped by a secularist agenda. Early scientists were primarily Christian who understood that the created order was rational, built on laws and designed to be understood and explored. Now, suddenly faith and science are seen as opposites. Amazing that you can draw such a conclusion based on the history of scientific inquiry. Some of the most brilliant scientists who laid the foundation of scientific study as we know it would laugh at your reasoning. Rightly so.

And that still goes on today. Look at Dr. Francis Collins for a good example. Scientist, Christian, head of the human genome project, director of the NIH. Again, no one is saying you can't believe in God and do science. The point here is, science cannot accommodate supernatural explanations for phenomena. As soon as you open that door, every believer in every supernatural thing will suddenly say "my God made it that way".

No, and neither did early scientists. No one is saying that we do not explore the facts and concepts as they are found. Nor is anyone saying that we just attribute everything in life to magical events we cannot search out or discover.

So how do you account for the fact that it was Bible-believing, Christian geologists from Europe who basically put an end to the global flood idea because the facts just didn't support it?

I am talking about foundational principles behind rationality and the goal and purpose of science. Your view has the goal and purpose of science is the glorification of man's self-derived rationality. I view science's purpose and goal is the exploration of God's discoverable universe on the basis of divinely gifted rationality for the purpose of worshipping his supreme intelligence.

You're still committing the same error of conflating creationists with creationism. People from all walks of faith and belief conduct science today. Lots of scientists still get their inspiration from their belief in God, including me. I think you might need to rely less on creationist organizations to inform you about what goes on in science, and actually talk to some people in it. Because you seem to have this view that the scientific community is some sort of anti-Christian club where once a month we all get together and plot about our next move to destroy religious belief or something.

I mean it was written in such a way as to indicate the author was communicating an actual event that corresponded to history. Quite the opposite of the idea that the story was borrowed and made up to make a point about the Israelites God in contrast to the Babylonian gods. Now we can argue about the literature of the narrative and how literally we want to view this narrative retelling of the event. That is fine. But in my estimation, there is simply nothing in the story or in the teaching use of this story by other inspired authors that would indicate that this is a localized judgment.

I'm quite sure the person who wrote the story believed it was at least mostly true, and likely all true. But the person who wrote it also had no idea what "the entire earth" was, or just how many species there were on earth, just how high various mountains were, the physics of flooding, or most of the other questions that arise from our modern understanding. But I just don't understand the logic of "the person who wrote it thought it was true, therefore it is true". And I have no idea what you mean by suggesting that if the story was borrowed, the author would have indicated it in the story. What did you expect...a footnote saying "This story borrowed and modified from a Babylonian story"?

No. I believe 1) Satan's temptation of Christ included supernatural elements that we don't really understand entirely (teleporting him to mountains, the pinnacle of the temple, Christ as a human interacting with a spiritual being: for instance...did Satan really "speak"? Does speaking require vocal cords and does this mean he took a physical form? (I don't think the text implies such strict analysis), etc.)

Sorry, but there's absolutely no indication in the text itself of that. All it says is that Satan took Jesus to the top of a mountain where all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen.

2) clearly the early author and readers would recognize that human vision only permits someone to see a limited distance even upon standing on a very high mountain...this narrative of the temptation is not meant to be a scientific and naturalistic event...clearly, 3) I never claimed the narratives of the Bible were written in scientific terms, but employ literary devices to communicate various concepts.

And here we see how you are using your knowledge of the world to inform your reading of scripture. If you believed in a flat earth, you'd have no trouble reading this exactly as it is written. But because you know the earth is round and such mountaintop viewing is impossible, you impose a supernatural explanation even though none is given.

I have never claimed that we should try to put all the narratives in a test tube and examine them scientifically. I am not claiming that about the Genesis flood..as I have said repeatedly. Please understand the difference between reading something in a way to allow the natural use of language to communicate ideas that may not be intended to be examined scientifically and claiming that the entire story was fabricated.

There's that black/white thinking again. Is the only other option in your mind really "the entire story was fabricated"?

I am fine if we want to say the temptation of Christ was supernatural or that there is some symbolic language (maybe "world" is referring to the known world/Roman Empire at the time). I am not fine with saying the entire event was made up by the author or borrowed from a pagan religion because it cannot be demonstrated in a scientists lab. Do you see the difference here?

You're missing the point. You've been complaining about how I allow my understanding of the world around me to play a role in my choices on how I read scripture. Yet as we see above, you do too.

No, I think Archer is drawing rational conclusions that such hermeneutical methods you employ ultimately make you the sovereign authority over Scripture to take and choose what suits you. You have displayed no consistent hermeneutical rationale to suggest otherwise. You seem to take and leave things in Scripture as they suit you.

Everyone has to make a choice on how to interpret scripture. The first scribes had to make choices on how to write them down. The people who wrote down the stories and words of Jesus had to make choices on how to describe them, and as we know they each made different choices. The translators who wrote down the scriptures in new languages certainly made many, many, many choices (as you know, many idioms and sayings don't translate literally from one language to another). The editors of various Bibles made choices about what books and even what passages to include in their particular versions. And all of us make choices about what we think the meaning behind every passage is. Literalism is a choice just like any other. So let's not pretend like there's one way, and one way only to go about this (and it just happens to be your way) and everything prior to you and I has been a clean, obvious, choice-free process.

 

[Forsakenone]

You're still committing the same error of conflating creationists with creationism. People from all walks of faith and belief conduct science today. Lots of scientists still get their inspiration from their belief in God, including me. I think you might need to rely less on creationist organizations to inform you about what goes on in science, and actually talk to some people in it. Because you seem to have this view that the scientific community is some sort of anti-Christian club where once a month we all get together and plot about our next move to destroy religious belief or something.

Here's a clip of a meeting amongst scientists where the speaker, a scientist lambasts those members of the National Academy of Sciences who believe in God. [see 9:30-10:20]
His speech is entitled the "Perimeter of Ignorance". In case you are wondering, anyone who disagrees with Darwin theory of evolution is scientifically ignorant and worthy of ridicule according to
the speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1te01rfEF0g

 

[River Jordan]

Here's a rough outline of Dr. Tyson's speech.

I. He uses the example of Ptolemy's belief in an earth-centric universe to demonstrate the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, and the problems with invoking God as an explanation for natural phenomena. Specifically, he describes how even though the paths of the planets in the sky didn't match up with the earth-centric model and the fact that we didn't understand what was going on "was ok and expected, because that was the work of the Gods." He compares this to intelligent design's basic argument of "it's too complex, therefore God did it". I think Dr. Tyson did an excellent job illustrating this point.

II. He then uses Galileo and Newton to illustrate how even though they were both religious men, when it came to their work they were decidedly naturalistic. Galileo even said "The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go". Newton, in describing planetary motion, took on what was previously "given to the Gods" (item I above) and explained it naturally, until he got to the point where the gravitational interactions of the planets themselves became complex, and he therefore "invokes intelligent design".

III. Dr. Tyson points out that items I and II above show how "some of the most brilliant minds in history invoked intelligent design" when they encountered things they couldn't explain. And now today we have organizations trying to get intelligent design taught in science classes.

A. He sidetracks and cites polling data showing that 90% of the public believe in a personal God, whereas only 15% of "elite scientists" do. He states "the real story is why isn't that number zero" since what the data seems to indicate is that the more scientific people are, the less they believe in a personal God. He concludes "there must be something else going on" and that it's something that "can't be swept under the rug". IOW, he's not saying scientists shouldn't be religious or believe in God, he's wondering why, if the data indicates that more scientific = less religious, why then are the some of most scientific people in the country religious?

IV. Dr. Tyson gets back on track and cites more examples of scientists reaching the limit of their ability to explain something and chalking the unexplained up to God. But, the interesting thing is how as we move forward in history, what was previously considered the "work of the Gods" becomes common knowledge, while new unexplained things are put into the "work of the Gods" category. I liked the line about how Laplace and his new mathematics (which are able to describe interplanetary gravitational effects) "does not invoke God, because he figured it out!"

V. Dr. Tyson then uses all this to make his primary point...as a scientist, you can't just invoke God whenever you can't explain something. When you do that, you no longer are a useful scientist and you're just waiting for the next guy to come along behind you and figure it out. IOW, as he says, "intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance". And then interestingly, Dr. Tyson says he wants this taught in science classes...IOW, he wants the fact that there's something fundamental to human nature that makes us attribute to God that which we currently can't explain, even though history clearly shows that eventually someone after us will figure it out. Even the most brilliant minds in history are susceptible to this. That's what he wants taught...a kind of warning to future scientists...when you hit a wall, don't just give up and say "well, there's God", keep going!

VI. Dr. Tyson finishes up by, 1) outlining how the Islamic world had a 300 year period of scientific and mathematical innovation and discovery that was completely halted by an official declaration that "math is of the devil", and comparing that way of thinking with 21st century fundamentalist Christians demonizing science in the US; and 2) posting examples of "stupid design" (e.g., all the ways in which the universe is really inhospitable to us).

I think that was an excellent presentation. Thanks for posting it!

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Dr. Tyson clearly is infallible.

 

[Forsakenone]

III. Dr. Tyson points out that items I and II above show how "some of the most brilliant minds in history invoked intelligent design" when they encountered things they couldn't explain. And now today we have organizations trying to get intelligent design taught in science classes.


A. He sidetracks and cites polling data showing that 90% of the public believe in a personal God, whereas only 15% of "elite scientists" do. He states "the real story is why isn't that number zero" since what the data seems to indicate is that the more scientific people are, the less they believe in a personal God. He concludes "there must be something else going on" and that it's something that "can't be swept under the rug". IOW, he's not saying scientists shouldn't be religious or believe in God, he's wondering why, if the data indicates that more scientific = less religious, why then are the some of most scientific people in the country religious?

Seems your post was more to convince yourself than anyone else. All I can say is be true to yourself.

I believe the readers can listen to Mr. Tyson's comments for themselves and make their own determination.

Here is just a couple quotes of Mr. Tyson

“God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Is that considered glorifying God, or praising Him?

We are not simply in the universe. The universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? John 14:10

“In the beginning, there was physics.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson, Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution.

There's no tradition of scientists knocking down the Sunday school door, telling the preacher,
That might not necessarily be true. That's never happened. There're no scientists picketing outside of churches.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Amazing Meeting, Keynote Speech, 2008
No, they used the public schools.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Unless you're ready to advocate an actual reasonably specific flood scenario, then yes. If all you have are a bunch of "I don't know" and "I never said that" for answers, then there's nothing really to discuss.

I'm not doing anything else than you are. Just as I pointed out:

"when you think you are knowlegeable enough to prove to me what conditions existed 6,000 years ago then let me know".

Neither you nor I know what happened at that time, so all YOU can say is "I don't know" - the very thing you accuse me of saying!

And the ONLY reason I say "I never said that" is... well... because I NEVER SAID IT! Am I supposed to just sit by and let you distort my comments at your own leisure? Think again River!

The problem here is that you seem to think that appealing to consensus is equivalent to "knowledge". You go through college, read a few books, listen to the world's explanation of life on earth, you suck it all in... and then you come here thinking you know it all.

 

[River Jordan]

Seems your post was more to convince yourself than anyone else. All I can say is be true to yourself.

Did I misrepresent anything from that talk?

I believe the readers can listen to Mr. Tyson's comments for themselves and make their own determination.

Yep.

Here is just a couple quotes of Mr. Tyson

“God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Is that considered glorifying God, or praising Him?

In the context of the talk you posted, I agree with what he said. Specifically, his point is that even though it seems to be a common instinct, scientists can't just throw up their hands and declare things "the providence of the Gods" when they can't figure stuff out. As he demonstrated throughout his lecture, history shows that eventually someone will come along after you and figure it out, removing it from "the providence of the Gods".

The rest of what you quoted aren't from the talk you posted.

I'm not doing anything else than you are. Just as I pointed out:

"when you think you are knowlegeable enough to prove to me what conditions existed 6,000 years ago then let me know".

Neither you nor I know what happened at that time, so all YOU can say is "I don't know" - the very thing you accuse me of saying!

And the ONLY reason I say "I never said that" is... well... because I NEVER SAID IT! Am I supposed to just sit by and let you distort my comments at your own leisure? Think again River!

The problem here is that you seem to think that appealing to consensus is equivalent to "knowledge". You go through college, read a few books, listen to the world's explanation of life on earth, you suck it all in... and then you come here thinking you know it all.

As I said, when you have an actual specific flood scenario, present it. Absent one, there's no scientific reason to consider it.

 

[aspen]

one of the biggest complaints i have heard from fundamentalist regarding Mormon apologists is 'they take Christian terms and redefine them using Mormon concepts' And i agree that this practice is intelectually dishonest. But the mystifying thing for me is how blind YEC is when it comes to their own log-in-the-eye when it comes to the YEC museum. same lipstick on a pig practice. The only group more intellectually dishonest in the Discovery Institute - they deny science and Christ.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River is a science apologist. She defends whatever Dr. Tyson and those of his ilk say.

She knows the contempt they have for her but refuses to acknowledge it. It's battered christian scientist syndrome. "But he always says he loves me afterwards."

 

[River Jordan]

River is a science apologist. She defends whatever Dr. Tyson and those of his ilk say.

She knows the contempt they have for her but refuses to acknowledge it. It's battered christian scientist syndrome. "But he always says he loves me afterwards."

Hilarious. "A science apologist"...yeah I guess from your perspective it must seem that way. But one has to wonder how a "non-science-apologist" such as you can bring himself to use electricity, plastics, automobiles, a computer, and the internet. Don't you people think of such things as tools of Satan or something? :lol:

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

The "why do you use computers" argument has always seemed extremely juvenile to me.