The Flood (2)

[AV1611VET]

No it is far more folly to not understand science. The scriptures don't tell you much useful stuff. Maybe some "human behavior" stuff.

Then I don't accept the charge of being fallacious --- especially since you've got it backwards.

[bible]Proverbs 1:7[/bible]

 

[Contracelsus]

Then I don't accept the charge of being fallacious --- especially since you've got it backwards.

[bible]Proverbs 1:7[/bible]

Whatever. You don't inspire me that _you_ have much wisdom or knowledge.

Good luck with your ministry!

 

[Servant222]

So can plate tectonics be used to support the notion of a Biblical flood? Not necessarily a world-wide flood- although even that should be considered in the context of this question.

What about the opening of the Red Sea to allow Moses to pass- could this have been another example of plate tectonic activity in action?

 

[Servant222]

Can we not stop the childish bickering and just debate the issue?

 

[AV1611VET]

What about the opening of the Red Sea to allow Moses to pass- could this have been another example of plate tectonic activity in action?

Does this sound like plate tectonics to you?

[bible]Exodus 14:21[/bible]

 

[Servant222]

Exodus 14:

21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

There certainly does not appear to be any mention of something that could be construed as plate movement.

But there is an interesting problem here- the Red Sea runs roughly north northwest - south southeast, so it would require a north or a south wind to open it up, not an east wind.

So is there an atmospheric scientist out there that could confirm or deny that wind alone could cause such an opening of the Red Sea waters- or do we need to invoke a miracle to accomplish this?

 

[AV1611VET]

So is there an atmospheric scientist out there that could confirm or deny that wind alone could cause such an opening of the Red Sea waters- or do we need to invoke a miracle to accomplish this?

I'd say God was in the miracle-working business back then; wouldn't you?

 

[FishFace]

That doesn't wash with me, because it doesn't wash with the Bible; and even though I may not know the intricacies of India's geology, I don't need to.

That doesn't wash with me because it doesn't wash with the ramblings of Bob the Drunk Tramp; even though I may not know the intricacies of theology or biblical interpretation or India's geology, I don't need to.

If it contradicts the Bible's chronology, it is because it didn't happen.

If it contradicts the ramblings of Bob the Drunk Tramp, it is because it didn't happen.

Bob the Drunk Tramp agrees with thaumaturgy, so you are wrong. And that's the end of it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'd say God was in the miracle-working business back then; wouldn't you?

When did he get out of the business?

 

[Servant222]

I know why it's wrong, and that's all I need to know.

Example: Thaumaturgy says that India is shoving itself up into the Asian continent. Fine, no problem - so far.

But then, he shows a chart showing that India started out miles south of the Asian continent, moving north at only centimeters per year, and when I ask how long it took to collide; I get an answer of 250 million years.

It is at this point that I disagree. That 250 million years is based on India starting out miles south of Asia.

It's like you guys think you can place India anywhere on the map you want, have it move as slowly as you want, then claim time will cover the difference.

That doesn't wash with me, because it doesn't wash with the Bible; and even though I may not know the intricacies of India's geology, I don't need to.

If it contradicts the Bible's chronology, it is because it didn't happen.

Well, here is what all the geologic evidence tells us:

India sits on one plate, Asia on another. Over time, the Indian plate has moved north and collided with the Asian plate, pushing up the Himalayan Mountains in the process.

But the Indian plate consists of both continental crust (India itself) and a piece of oceanic crust that was sandwiched between India and Asia as they collided. It was this chunk of oceanic crust that was thrust up as the massive collision of India and Asia happened- which explains why we have marine fossils on the summit of Mount Everest.

Now before you go saying "Ha HA- the marine fossils on Mt. Everest were left there during the Biblical flood", realize that a flood would have left marine fossils on all the mountains in that area- but the reality is that they are restricted only to those mountains that were once part of the sea floor between India and Asia before they collided. They are also found in numerous layers of rock, not just a near surface one.

So there is no conflict here- unless you interpret the Bible to state that the Earth is only 6100 years old. In order to do that, you then also have to believe that the light coming to us from distant stars must have once moved at a fantastically higher speed (much faster than the currently accepted 300,000 km/s), that the layer upon layer of ice in Antarctica and Greenland has accumulated at a much faster rate (much faster than the currently accepted 900,000 years), and that all independent radiometric age dating techniques are dead wrong and that the rate of radioactive decay radically changed over time.

My science very much includes God, and I personally don't believe that God was out there to fool us by providing all sorts of independent evidence for an old earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

So there is no conflict here- unless you interpret the Bible to state that the Earth is only 6100 years old.

I have never said this earth is 6100 years old. I always give it an age of 4.57 billion. It has only existed for 6100 years, though.

 

[Servant222]

I stand corrected- I think. But how can the earth have an age of 4.57 billion years, but have only existed for 6100 years?

Can I do the same as I grow old?

Remember, the most ancient civilization that we have any record of date back to about 3500 years ago, so a lot happened between 6100 years ago and 3500 years ago.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have never said this earth is 6100 years old. I always give it an age of 4.57 billion. It has only existed for 6100 years, though.

What could be more absurd and illogical than this? If the earth has only existed 6100 years it is 6100 years old. A planet that has only existed 6,100 years can not be 4.57 billion years old. Why do you keep spouting this total nonsense over and over? You can't seriously expect that anyone else could accept such an illogical idea can you?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I stand corrected- I think. But how can the earth have an age of 4.57 billion years, but have only existed for 6100 years?

It can't. You have just run into the massive illogic of AV. You should see from this that rational discussion with AV is not really possible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I stand corrected- I think. But how can the earth have an age of 4.57 billion years, but have only existed for 6100 years?

There are two ways I can think of that this can happen:

1. God creates the universe with age embedded in it.
2. God creates the universe then, using only a 2nd dimension of time, ages the universe to perfection, then returns it to its current dimension. Thus no time would pass from the perspective of the 1st dimension.

I support #1 above, which would explain why Adam was created as a mature adult, etc.

#2 above, although easier to explain scientifically, cannot be supported by Scripture, and is, in fact, a sort of modified Gap Theory. There's just no reason I can think of for God doing it this way, since embedded age (defined as maturity w/o history) would be much "easier." In addition, Adam would have had to have spent the first 30 years of his life in the 2nd dimension of time, as well as all the trees, animals, etc.

 

[Genre]

There are two ways I can think of that this can happen:

1. God creates the universe with age embedded in it.
2. God creates the universe then, using only a 2nd dimension of time, ages the universe to perfection, then returns it to its current dimension. Thus no time would pass from the perspective of the 1st dimension.

I support #1 above, which would explain why Adam was created as a mature adult, etc.

#2 above, although easier to explain scientifically, cannot be supported by Scripture, and is, in fact, a sort of modified Gap Theory. There's just no reason I can think of for God doing it this way, since embedded age (defined as maturity w/o history) would be much "easier." In addition, Adam would have had to have spent the first 30 years of his life in the 2nd dimension of time, as well as all the trees, animals, etc.

If you are going to go with that argument, stick with #1. #2 doesn't make sense.

 

[Servant222]

I can never understand why some Christians need to go through the most amazing contortions to explain how God made and sustains the Universe.

Why can't we just keep it simple?

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are going to go with that argument, stick with #1. #2 doesn't make sense.

#2 makes perfect sense.

If you were going south down the highway, and your odometer read 1000 miles, and you make a right turn and drove 50 miles, then did a 180 and drove back to the highway and continued your journey; your odometer going southbound would go from 1000 to 1100.

Using TIME instead of DISTANCE, that would explain the earth being 4.57 billion years old, but having been in existence this side of time for only 6100 years.

 

[Skaloop]

There are two ways I can think of that this can happen:

1. God creates the universe with age embedded in it.
2. God creates the universe then, using only a 2nd dimension of time, ages the universe to perfection, then returns it to its current dimension. Thus no time would pass from the perspective of the 1st dimension.

I support #1 above, which would explain why Adam was created as a mature adult, etc.

I thought you weren't down with Omphalos, yet you subscribe to #1, which is practically the definition of Omphalos.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you weren't down with Omphalos, yet you subscribe to #1, which is practically the definition of Omphalos.

Omphalos is embedded history --- I'm embedded age.