The Flood

[Split Rock]

That's right --- just like your science --- so enjoy the ride.

Not at all.. science is not infallible. Don't you remember bringing that up all the time here??

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again we come to the understanding that the Bible is God's infallible Word because the Bible says it is. And a round and around we go.....

That's right --- just like your science --- so enjoy the ride.

Not at all.. science is not infallible. Don't you remember bringing that up all the time here??

Let's try this again ---

And a round and around we go.....

That's right --- just like your science --- so enjoy the ride.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science relies upon evidence
Bible relies upon Bible

Science, as I have pointed out, is circular also.

It relies upon evidence supplied by its interpretation of nature.

 

[Servant222]

Caused when God pulled the American continent away from the European continent.

The European continent is moving away from the North American continent because of spreading activity at the mid-Atlantic rift; here is a diagram from the USGS:

Without getting into the details and getting off-topic, it is amazing to me how the many Biblical references to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other geologic events are entirely consistent with what we now know about plate tectonics in the Middle East. For example, the valley that contains the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee is a rift similar to the mid-Atlantic rift. At such places, we expect to see earthquakes and outpouring of lava, but eruptions tend to be relatively passive; not violent, like those associated with subduction zones.

So the Bible descriptions are entirely consistent with this type of plate interaction, which to me is one more thing that attests to the authenticity of the Bible.

Plate tectonics also explains the well-documented massive flood that affected the entire Mediterranean basin, and could very well have been the flood described in the Bible, even though we know it wasn't a world-wide flood. You can read more about the Mediterranean flood in this excellent article: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF12-97Morton.html

 

[AV1611VET]

The European continent is moving away from the North American continent because of spreading activity at the mid-Atlantic rift; here is a diagram from the USGS:

Sounds good to me ---

 

[Phred]

Science, as I have pointed out, is circular also.

It relies upon evidence supplied by its interpretation of nature.

Which is there for you to go out and examine for yourself should you disagree with the interpretation of the data. Unlike your Bible which I believe one requires special revelation to understand? Isn't that what we were told just a few pages back?

 

[Split Rock]

Science, as I have pointed out, is circular also.

It relies upon evidence supplied by its interpretation of nature.

Science studies the physical world, by examining the physical evidence.

You claim the Bible is God's Infallible Word, because the Bible says it is God's Infallible World.

The latter is called a circular argument.

Understand now?

 

[Servant222]

Science in this case tries to explain the past, and theories change as new evidence becomes known.

But how God created the Universe is fixed; it has already happened.

As a Christian, I am confident that once all the facts and evidence are in, there will be no conflict between how the Bible maintains that the Earth was formed, and how science describes that process.

 

[Baggins]

[I'm not playing your twist the words game. You are trying to feign innocence and pass the blame off on others but you know exactly what I was saying and that it was true. I'm not receiving it.

Even that doesn't make much sense. And you still haven't explained in what context you did use the word "ostentation", but I doubt you ever will now as it would be difficult to make a case for another meaning to your post.

You may have known what you were saying, but you are unable to convey it in writing to the rest of us.

You mangle the English language, what did it ever do to you to deserve such treatment?

 

[thaumaturgy]

The So the Bible descriptions are entirely consistent with this type of plate interaction, which to me is one more thing that attests to the authenticity of the Bible.

Certainly no one doubts that the Bible was written by people. Inspired by God or not, doesn't really matter. People seeing the earth around them, record the events as they see them.

No one denies Egypt exists, but that doesn't mean that necessarily there must have been a Moses or that he necessarily was a spokesman for God.

Plate tectonics also explains the well-documented massive flood that affected the entire Mediterranean basin, and could very well have been the flood described in the Bible, even though we know it wasn't a world-wide flood. You can read more about the Mediterranean flood in this excellent article:

Thanks for the link.

There's a lot of neat geology and what we have learned as scientists can certainly help explain some of the stories we read in the Bible.

I think most scientists here find it frustrating that some folks would rather make reality conform to the Bible rather than trying to explain the bible using reality.

 

[Baggins]

Plate tectonics also explains the well-documented massive flood that affected the entire Mediterranean basin, and could very well have been the flood described in the Bible, even though we know it wasn't a world-wide flood. You can read more about the Mediterranean flood in this excellent article: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF12-97Morton.html

The flood that inundated the Mediterraenian basin was at the Miocene/Pliocene boundary, a long before modern humans, in fact somewhere around the time that the common ancestor of Chimps and Humans lived, so I doubt this could have been the biblical flood. I think the inundation of the black sea basin may be a better historical example, but also the annual flooding of the Mesopotamian basin may have something to do with it especially as the biblical flood epic seems to be derived from the flood stories in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

[Inan3]

Even that doesn't make much sense. And you still haven't explained in what context you did use the word "ostentation", but I doubt you ever will now as it would be difficult to make a case for another meaning to your post.

You may have known what you were saying, but you are unable to convey it in writing to the rest of us.

You mangle the English language, what did it ever do to you to deserve such treatment?

I'm very capable of conveying what I want to say, I just don't want to convey it to you. I have already given my explanation on the use of the word "ostentation" and that's the end of it.

 

[Inan3]

Which is there for you to go out and examine for yourself should you disagree with the interpretation of the data. Unlike your Bible which I believe one requires special revelation to understand? Isn't that what we were told just a few pages back?

No you don't need special revelation. No one said that. What you need is an open heart and mind to the things of God. That's what we told you.

 

[Baggins]

I'm very capable of conveying what I want to say, I just don't want to convey it to you. I have already given my explanation on the use of the word "ostentation" and that's the end of it.

the only explanation you gave was it didn't mean what i said it did. You have never said what you did actually mean by it, probably because there appears to be no other explanation.

But you are a creationist and congenitally inable to admit any error however small, so I let you off.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As a Christian, I am confident that once all the facts and evidence are in, there will be no conflict between how the Bible maintains that the Earth was formed, and how science describes that process.

May I ask why? Science will find whatever science finds, obviously you are "science-friendly" as per your earlier post.

But I have to ask what the Bible has to say about any of it? Why would you assume a book written by largely anonymous sources, editted by largely anonymous editors, canonized by committee would in any way necessarily match up with anything else?

Surely the Bible might match up with science (so far it has failed on several occasions, despite what AV will tell you), but correlation does not mean causation, and given the Bible's spotty record on providing inerrant truth I'd have to say that prospects don't look good that everything will match up to science in the end.

As I pointed out earlier to AV (HERE), if you were to read the Bible and try to draw conclusions based on it, you would likely end up drawing incorrect conclusions.

If I were to know all about cows inside and out and I know they chew cud, which is a specific material that is attended by a specific digestive tract unlike most other mammals, would I, using the Bible, have a clear indication of what a hare is like?

No. In point of fact I would have to come up with some unstated backstory or some proposal of how word meanings are different for different people.

In essence, if the Bible can be considered useful to science, you have effectively written a thoroughly post modernist (Po Mo) text, in which objective reality is called into question to the point that science, effectively, becomes impossible.

For the Bible to work in science, we first have to eliminate science.

For science to work with the bible, it just does what it does and the Bible either matches or not. There is no necessary coupling. And as such, to assume that the science will, in your opinion, likely all line up with the bible seems to verge on "putting the cart before the horse" from a logic standpoint.

But certainly you are free to believe whatever you like.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is there for you to go out and examine for yourself should you disagree with the interpretation of the data.

And so is mine --- you just need the right Tool. The only difference is, I would have to pay for my tools to examine your claims; you wouldn't have to pay for your Tool to examine my claims.

[bible]Romans 5:18[/bible]

Unlike your Bible which I believe one requires special revelation to understand? Isn't that what we were told just a few pages back?

Then by all means --- get the special revelation Tool and get to it.

[bible]Revelation 22:17[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Science studies the physical world, by examining the physical evidence.

You claim the Bible is God's Infallible Word, because the Bible says it is God's Infallible World.

The latter is called a circular argument.

Understand now?

I sure do --- and I stand by my claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science in this case tries to explain the past, and theories change as new evidence becomes known.

But how God created the Universe is fixed; it has already happened.

As Henry M. Morris puts it ---

• Evolution teaches continuous natural processes.
• Creation teaches completed supernatural principles.

(...or thereabouts.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The flood that inundated the Mediterraenian basin was at the Miocene/Pliocene boundary, a long before modern humans, in fact somewhere around the time that the common ancestor of Chimps and Humans lived, so I doubt this could have been the biblical flood. I think the inundation of the black sea basin may be a better historical example, but also the annual flooding of the Mesopotamian basin may have something to do with it especially as the biblical flood epic seems to be derived from the flood stories in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Stating that the Mesopotamian area was flooded locally doesn't disprove the Flood.

Noah [probably] didn't even live there, let alone build an Ark there.

The Ark "rested" there, not "departed from" there.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a Christian, I am confident that once all the facts and evidence are in, there will be no conflict between how the Bible maintains that the Earth was formed, and how science describes that process.

Indeed --- I have another way of stating this exact same point:

• Keep looking.