The Flood

[thaumaturgy]

It wording does not even fit the definition of an allegory or a metaphor.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term allegory.

Allegory: "A form of extended metaphor in which objects and persons in a narrative, either in prose or verse, are equated with meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. Thus it represents one thing in the guise of another--an abstraction in that of a concrete image. The characters are usually personifications of abstract qualities...." (Wm. Thrall, et al, Handbook to Literature, NY Odyssey, 1960)

There, you've learned something new.

Perhaps you thought I said simile? That would indeed be incorrect wording. And of course, not what I said.

Just because I am a professional scientist doesn't mean I didn't score exceedingly high on verbal test scores.

 

[Inan3]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term allegory.



There, you've learned something new.

Perhaps you thought I said simile? That would indeed be incorrect wording. And of course, not what I said.

Just because I am a professional scientist doesn't mean I didn't score exceedingly high on verbal test scores.

Oh I know you have a wonderful grasp of the English language. It's just too bad you don't use it more in a positive sense ... to build up rather than tear down ... if you know what I mean?

No, I didn't think you said simile. I, also, know what an allegory is and I repeat my original statement. Genesis 1 does not fit the definition of an allegory!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Where is the geologist that knows how sediments were laid down?

It is obvious that the Grand Canyon can't have been formed by the colorado river as it is today.

What do we have here but an extreme uniformitarian assumption. The Colorado River probably couldn't form the Grand Canyon today, especially since the construction of the Glenn Canyon Dam.

The side canyons couldn't have been produced by intermittent peiodic flooding. For one they are at much steeper grade than the river course yet the side canyons are cut just as deeply as the river yet much steeper. Which means they occurred at the same time.

The side canyons are cut to the level of the river because the Grand Canyon is an equilibrium drainage basin that has formed over a long period of time.

Look at the geologic map of the canyon and you'll discover that the side canyons correspond fault lines that run parallel to the side canyons.

In some such as Bright Angel Canyon but not in all of them.

Which isn't coincidence. And, notice that this fact is ignored by geologists.

This is completely false. I suggest you read Chapter 21 in Grand Canyon Geology, edited by Beus and Morales, Side Canyons of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon by Potochnik and Reynolds. The authors specifically discuss the effects of faults on the geomorphology of side cayons and the features that allow geologists to indentify those side canyons, such as Bright Angel whose morphology is influenced by faulting.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Oh I know you have a wonderful grasp of the English language. It's just too bad you don't use it more in a positive sense ... to build up rather than tear down ... if you know what I mean?

I know it hurts when someone corrects you. And you think it is "tearing down", when in fact I merely educated you. You said Genesis' wording did not fit "allegory" when in point of fact it appears to do that quite nicely. Especially considering that I can find no evidence that "wording" defines allegory in any particular way.

No, I didn't think you said simile. I, also, know what an allegory is and I repeat my original statement. Genesis 1 does not fit the definition of an allegory!

No, actually you said:

It wording does not even fit the definition of an allegory or a metaphor.

(emphasis added)

But more importantly why? Were you unable to read the definition I posted earlier? I can re-post it if you like. Maybe I could post various other definitions for you:

ALLEGORY: A story in which people, things, and actions represent an idea or generalization about life; allegories often have a strong moral or lesson. See Symbol, Symbolism (SOURCE)

ALLEGORY-a narrative in which characters and action represent abstract concepts different from the literal meaning of the story.(SOURCE)

allegory -- A work of art created to represent something else but disguised by use of symbols and symbolic ideas.(SOURCE)

figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another. (SOURCE)

So please tell me how the wording of Genesis does not fit allegory. I don't see any indication that "wording" has anything to do with it.

Maybe when you're at school taking your historical geology class you can audit another English lit class!

Or maybe you could do the unthinkable and provide some backing facts to support your contention.

See, it looks kinda like one of my posts...it has numerous instances of facts and links to SOURCES. And it helps that my sources are usually quite diverse and not just representing one webpage or one church's defintions!

(HINT: This is some of the skills you can develop when you get an appreciation for how science is done! We rely on supportable claims and copious support!

And I know this'll shock ya! But I'd gladly seriously consider any supporting evidence you have for your contention that Genesis somehow doesn't fit an allegorical construct!)

I know it's hard for Creationists to understand (because as a Good Fundamentalist they know that a Christian isn't perfect but never wrong), but I honestly feel bad when I misrepresent someone's point or post an error. I still feel bad for mistakenly posting several times an error I made in explaining a statistical point of order that probably none of the Creationists I was debating at the time even caught!

I've apologized to more creationists for things I've said than I have ever been apologized to for being told scientists are liars!

So please post your actual facts and we'll consider if Genesis simply couldn't be allegorical because of its wording. (So far I can't recall many creationists or fundamentalists actually rising to that sort of challenge. I look forward to being pleasantly surprised!)

 

[TheBear]

What ever happened to "The Deluge?"

I think it's interchangeable with the "FLOOD". Just be sure to use the all-caps for "DELUGE".

I'd rep you for this if I could. It reminds me of some little kid constantly shouting in a vain attempt to get his/her way.

It's one of those idiosyncrasies that stands out like a sore thumb!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Look I'm out of here for now.

You have endless questions and no true story to tell.
But I'll be back soon for the readers of these posts.


Joman.

Joman, let's talk about "true" stories to tell.

I've spent my life in the pursuit of knowledge. I've attended 3 universities, got 3 college degrees, taught at 3 other colleges and universities, done two postdocs and my job essentially is "research and development" which means every single day I am set up to learn. That's my job. If I go into a project "knowing what I'm doing" I'm not doing it right because it's research.

So when I read your stuff I realize you have virtually nothing to teach us. I would be interested if you actually did. But your version of geology seems to rely largely on hand-waving and vague statements that you never back up with references or that are so ill-formed that they can't be directly addressed.

You make claims of homogeneity in layers in the Grand Canyon and when asked for an example, you retort that we are the geologists and we should find one!

That's when I knew you got nothin'. And it's sad because you started off hitting around the Hjulstrom diagram and made some interesting points about particle size and shape dominant in flowing water. But when faced with the actual science you retreated and couldn't seem to really "respond" or back up your claim.

So many YEC's seem to have such a "surficial" grasp of the science, if they have any grasp at all. I had rather hoped you'd provide some actual data or be able to work through the maths for us in relation to Hjulstrom, Stokes and the Shields Diagram.

But no, you went off into the weeds and started telling us all about how the White Cliffs of Dover were impossible using anything but a Flood model.

You have nothing to teach, but that doesn't seem to stop you telling professional scientists they are wrong.

Got anything to teach us? Let's compare your posts in this thread to mine (in interactions between the two of us).

Number of External References and Illustrations:

Jorman:
Post 393: 0 external references
Post 401: 0
Post 413: 0
Post 418: 0
Post 419: 0

Thaumaturgy:
Post 399: 3
Post 406: 5
Post 412: 6

Whose telling "stories"?

 

[AV1611VET]

So please post your actual facts and we'll consider if Genesis simply couldn't be allegorical because of its wording.

Only people who are smart enough to refuse to answer my APPLE CHALLENGE would talk like this.

(So far I can't recall many creationists or fundamentalists actually rising to that sort of challenge. I look forward to being pleasantly surprised!)

Have an apple while you're waiting.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Only people who are smart enough to refuse to answer my APPLE CHALLENGE would talk like this.

Which would include nearly everyone since your apple challenge is completely bogus.

Have an apple while you're waiting.

Why don't you create some ex nihilo for us? Maybe you could create a Washington Delicious complete with the usual sticker on the side.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Only people who are smart enough to refuse to answer my APPLE CHALLENGE would talk like this.



Have an apple while you're waiting.

Sorry, goofy flawed analogies don't count as serious science.

Try bringing some science to the table. And don't do what you've been prone to doing lately and running away when someone posts even more science and more in-depth scientific facts than you can handle.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Which would include nearly everyone since your apple challenge is completely bogus.



Why don't you create some ex nihilo for us? Maybe you could create a Washington Delicious complete with the usual sticker on the side.

AV has lately really become "all talk" and no action.

When asked if he could use the Bible he claims contains so much useful science to make a breakthrough discovery in science he responds thusly:

Let's see you write a non-fiction novel containing no science.
(SOURCE)

But most importantly here AV is responding to my request to Inan to back up her claim that the "wording" of Genesis doesn't fit the allegorical form.

He can't even support that end of the debate!

It's like AV only challenges other people, and never rises to a challenge.

Oh well.
[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

 

[FishFace]

Only people who are smart enough to refuse to answer my APPLE CHALLENGE would talk like this.

You never answered Split Rock's Nose Ruby challenge, so I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Have an apple while you're waiting.

Naa... But I have just pulled a ruby out of my nose. Prove it to you friend.

 

[AV1611VET]

But most importantly here AV is responding to my request to Inan to back up her claim that the "wording" of Genesis doesn't fit the allegorical form.

It doesn't --- as my APPLE CHALLENGE shows:

• Something can exist --- even though there is no traceable evidence to support it.

And now you know why you're too smart to answer the challenge.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It doesn't --- as my APPLE CHALLENGE shows:

• Something can exist --- even though there is no traceable evidence to support it.

• It can't exist unless you actually can create the apple. However, it does show that someone can make up fantasies about things that can't exist and claim that they can exist.

And now you know why you're too smart to answer the challenge.

It appears that you are using things like your bogus apple challenge to distract attention from the fact that your have no possibility of providing any actual science to support any of the nonsense you keep spouting and that in fact all the relevant science that can be applied shows that the flood of Noah if it occured at all could not have been global.

 

[AV1611VET]

It appears that you are using things like your bogus apple challenge to distract attention from the fact that your have no possibility of providing any actual science to support any of the nonsense you keep spouting and that in fact all the relevant science that can be applied shows that the flood of Noah if it occured at all could not have been global.

I don't need "things like my bogus apple challenge."

I've said it plainly before --- and I'll say it again:

• There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support ex nihilo Creation. It simply doesn't exist, and if it wasn't for the Documentation given to us, we wouldn't know it occurred.

Is that plain enough?

 

[thaumaturgy]

It doesn't --- as my APPLE CHALLENGE shows:

• Something can exist --- even though there is no traceable evidence to support it.

And now you know why you're too smart to answer the challenge.

I know you're "on a roll" now, but please try to focus. You were responding to my suggesting that Inan should explain to me how Genesis' wording can not allow it to be an allegory.

This is hard for you, I know. But focus. Go back and re-read the posts you were responding to.

If you can find a definition of allegory that makes Genesis' wording fall outside of the definition such that it is not possible for it to be allegory, then please present it.

Sheesh. You folks need someone to hold your hand throughout the whole process don't you?

Your apple challenge has no bearing on the current discussion.

This is a technical matter and your "just so stories" and gedanken experiments have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand.

Please, again, focus!

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't need "things like my bogus apple challenge."

I've said it plainly before --- and I'll say it again:

• There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support ex nihilo Creation. It simply doesn't exist, and if it wasn't for the Documentation given to us, we wouldn't know it occurred.

Is that plain enough?

And more importantly, you cannot prove that ex nihilo creation occurred.

Is that simple enough for you?

We don't EVER have to DISPROVE your ex nihilo creation, we simply ask for you to PROVE your claim.

You have one data point: Genesis

1. Written by you don't know whom
2. Editted by you don't know whom
3. Appearing almost exactly in the same form as countless other creation myths.
4. Written for reasons you are unaware.
5. Transcribed by you don't know whom
6. Chosen to be canonical by you don't know whom
7. Translated into other languages by a committee of scholars. Can you name the ones directly responsible for the exact pen-to-paper work for the KJV? Which sub-committee was responsible for Genesis?

So, please, prove anything you claim. Ex Nihilo? Sure! No problem. prove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can find a definition of allegory that makes Genesis' wording fall outside of the definition such that it is not possible for it to be allegory, then please present it.

I'll do better than that --- instead of say what Genesis 1 isn't --- let's say what Genesis 1 is --- viz., literal.

 

[AV1611VET]

And more importantly, you cannot prove that ex nihilo creation occurred.

No kidding! What do you think my APPLE CHALLENGE is all about?

I cannot prove ex nihilo Creation of even a simple apple, and neither can anyone else.

Yet it happened.

Is that simple enough for you?

Rather --- is it simple enough for you --- I'm already way ahead of you in your assertions of what I'm saying here. You're just catching up.

We don't EVER have to DISPROVE your ex nihilo creation, we simply ask for you to PROVE your claim.

I did not ask you to DISPROVE it --- I asked you what evidence you would use to show it happened.

You have one data point: Genesis

1. Written by you don't know whom
2. Editted by you don't know whom
3. Appearing almost exactly in the same form as countless other creation myths.
4. Written for reasons you are unaware.
5. Transcribed by you don't know whom
6. Chosen to be canonical by you don't know whom
7. Translated into other languages by a committee of scholars. Can you name the ones directly responsible for the exact pen-to-paper work for the KJV? Which sub-committee was responsible for Genesis?

Faith dictates I respond accordingly:

1. Adam.
2. Moses.
3. Not true.
4. To clarify --- not cloud --- the Creation account.
5. Ultimately the Holy Spirit.
6. Ultimately the Holy Spirit.
7. No --- no --- but it doesn't matter if Genghis Khan translated it; the Holy Ghost superintended the work.

Ex Nihilo? Sure! No problem. prove it.

No --- that's what my APPLE CHALLENGE is all about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Incidentally, Thaumaturgy, q.v. POST 126 where I told Chordatest Legacy that I actually can show ex-nihilo creation (of anything) mathematically.

(But it's on such a technicality, that it's just easier to say it can't be done.)

 

[TheOutsider]

Faith dictates I respond accordingly:

1. Adam.
2. Moses.
3. Not true.
4. To clarify --- not cloud --- the Creation account.
5. Ultimately the Holy Spirit.
6. Ultimately the Holy Spirit.
7. No --- no --- but it doesn't matter if Genghis Khan translated it; the Holy Ghost superintended the work.

Do you have any actual evidence for those answers?