Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[florida2]

don't get too excited,
I was just using the etymology as a support for my valid theory that cartilage is not bone, and therefore should not (not is currently, but should not be) classified as a "back bone", hence the reply : it should be called a "back-cartilage not a back -bone."

Fine, write to different authorities on taxonomy and ask them to introduce the word 'back cartilage'. Think you will need some good luck! I've kinda lost the reason why you are so passionate about the whole bone-cartilage thing.

okay that comment has nothing to do with this debate, and shall be considered "word filler" - and given in order to gain attention and a following where a lack of original premise or factual matter does not exist (on your part).

Gain attention? "Look at me! I know that 3% of animal species are vertebrates!"

Really?

You seem to be getting very worked up about vertebrates so I was merely pointing out that only 3% of animal species are vertebrates. That's all.

The amount of vertebrates is completely arbitrary and a red herring off of the original topic.

Really? Please give examples of classification of vertebrates that you think are arbitrary. How is it a red herring when it's what you're posting about?

well it seems you need to do some reasearch yourself, sir.

I would say that you need to do some research into spelling in your posts, but that would be harsh.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Neither. It is frustrating because of the nonsense "logic" and factual errors.

The Bible stands well on its own. It should not be blamed for nonsense that is imposed upon it----such as "the circle of the ERETZ" efforts to turn CIRCLE into SPHERE.

Within the context of the verse it is more likely that circle actually meant sphere, but in the sense of the whole earth (eretz can mean the whole of earth), which of course is a sphere. The word circle means neither a two dimensional circle nor a global sphere.

The Hebrew word means 'circuit', or 'compass'; "he who inhabits (sits) all that is encompassed (circled) by the earth."

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes.... an actual circle.... not a 3-dimensional object....

I am APPALLED that the Bible used the word "circle" to describe a sphere. HOW COULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?????

Oh. The word "sphere" wasn't even invented until 1250 - 1300 AD. That might explain it.

It's like children trying to mock the mighty and wise king. They giggle and think themselves profound but their foolishness amuses nobody but themselves.

 

[Split Rock]

at least I don't correlate vertebrates and endoskeletons lol.

No, you just keep calling sharks invertebrates. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Also I doubt very much you were thinking of sponges when I used the term "endoskeleton."
Were you?

give me one except that you disagreed with, rather than simply saying- there was no evidence. This just suggests you never actually read it.

I said it had no original data and made use of data in only one figure. It is nothing but assertion, piled on assertion. Period. If that is the best of cutting edge scientific creationism, then you have helped me to demonstrate how vacuous it is.

When I said game, I meant that one quotes a dry scientific site that no one wants to read, then the other debater quotes another dry scientific site that no one wants to read. And I see, that since you offer no summaries of the report, that you in fact did not read the report I linked to.

Thats fine, but it just shows that you are playing the game whether you want to admit it or not.

You are the one playing games. The "creation scientists" who wrote that sad paper are playing games. The evidence means nothing to them; in fact they even must agree to a series of indisputable tenets indicating that the evidence means nothing to them http://www.icr.org/tenets/. That is why they presented almost no data to support their assertions. I couldn't care less what assertions they make, if they do not support them. You can quote me on that.

 

[Split Rock]

I am APPALLED that the Bible used the word "circle" to describe a sphere. HOW COULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?????

Oh. The word "sphere" wasn't even invented until 1250 - 1300 AD. That might explain it.

It's like children trying to mock the mighty and wise king. They giggle and think themselves profound but their foolishness amuses nobody but themselves.

I believe they had a term for "ball."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But we should still be able to date the erosion in the same way that we date the deposition, and it should be recent.

The Flood would be very recent in geologic time, and therefore very vulnerable to weathering etc. Also man has been changing the face of the earth for millennia, especially fertile valleys and lowlands, destroying lots of evidence.

Slow water will leave the most evidence because it will allow the most sediment to settle out.

Deposition is not an exact science. Too many variables.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe they had a term for "ball."

Or a pearl?

Matthew 13:46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Flood would be very recent in geologic time, and therefore very vulnerable to weathering etc.

Then we should see those weathered deposits. Where are they?

Deposition is not an exact science. Too many variables.

It is an exact science. It has 300 years of geology behind it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am APPALLED that the Bible used the word "circle" to describe a sphere. HOW COULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?????

Indeed. They had a word for ball, so why not use it? Instead, they purposefully used words that explicitly describe the Earth as being flat.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I am APPALLED that the Bible used the word "circle" to describe a sphere. HOW COULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?????

Oh. The word "sphere" wasn't even invented until 1250 - 1300 AD. That might explain it.

It's like children trying to mock the mighty and wise king. They giggle and think themselves profound but their foolishness amuses nobody but themselves.

Do you often miss forests for the trees?

Well, that's the point, isn't it? You can't have it both ways. Either your holy book is supernatural, or it isn't. Unfortunately, you just admitted it really isn't.

 

[KWCrazy]

I believe they had a term for "ball."

How many of them had circumnavigated the globe at that point? Why would we presume that God saw a benefit in describing the formation of the world with a concept they wouldn't understand? Besides. "The first known use of the word ball in English in the sense of a globular body that is played with was in 1205."

"The Hebrews have no mention of the ball in their scriptures."

 

[AV1611VET]

How many of them had circumnavigated the globe at that point? Why would we presume that God saw a benefit in describing the formation of the world with a concept they wouldn't understand? Besides. "The first known use of the word ball in English in the sense of a globular body that is played with was in 1205."

"The Hebrews have no mention of the ball in their scriptures."

Actually, the earth didn't have a shape yet:

Genesis 1:2a And the earth was without form,

The shape came later in Genesis 1.

As usual, we're dealing with e-scientists though, who think the Bible should be some kind of science manual.

As a side note, notice also that the earth is "without form," yet e-scientists claim the earth was "formed" and wonder why we don't agree.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then we should see those weathered deposits. Where are they?

By weathered I mean that much flood evidence would have been obliterated by 4000 or more years of various weather events that have taken place all over the earth. If the great flood washed through a certain valley how many more flood events have also altered the landscape there over the millenia?

Here in Wisconsin we have areas that flood almost every year, while a few miles away, in different terrain, no flooding ever occurs. Looking for positive evidence of Noah's flood everywhere is a wild goose chase. Such evidence will never be found.

 

[TheBear]

Too funny ...

I wonder. Could the asteroids and particles and dust, which eventually gathered to form earth, be considered 'earth without form'?

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

]Oh. The word "sphere" wasn't even invented until 1250 - 1300 AD. That might explain it.

One wouldn't think it would have to be said, but here goes:

The fact that the ENGLISH language didn't have a word for "sphere" until 1250-1300AD has absolutely NOTHING to do with what words the ancient Hebrews had or didn't have for the same concept, thousands of years before.

Sheesh! Incredible. (Will wonders never cease?)

 

[Herman Hedning]

Oh. The word "sphere" wasn't even invented until 1250 - 1300 AD. That might explain it.

You mean that the word sphere wasn't introduced into English until the 13th century? Not quite the same is it?

Also, noone is saying the word "sphere" or some derivative was used in the Hebrew text. The concept of a sphere has certainly been known since time immemorial.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too funny ...

I wonder. Could the asteroids and particles and dust, which eventually gathered to form earth, be considered 'earth without form'?

Were you there?

 

[AV1611VET]

One wouldn't think it would have to be said, but here goes:

The fact that the ENGLISH language didn't have a word for "sphere" until 1250-1300AD has absolutely NOTHING to do with what words the ancient Hebrews had or didn't have for the same concept, thousands of years before.

Sheesh! Incredible. (Will wonders never cease?)

These wouldn't be the 'ancient Jews' that e-scientists call 'ignorant, Bronze Age goat herders,' would they?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean that the word sphere wasn't introduced into English until the 13th century? Not quite the same is it?

Also, noone is saying the word "sphere" or some derivative was used in the Hebrew text. The concept of a sphere has certainly been known since time immemorial.

Let me know when you highly-educated graduates figure out the shape this thing God said was 'without form' is, will you?

I promise not to laugh -- (well, not like I am now, anyway).

 

[Loudmouth]

Were you there?

Were you there when thalidomide caused birth defects in the womb?