Biblical Flood II

[lucaspa]

Let's try this again. The last thread ended with a post by Juvenissun.

In this forum, we talk about theology first, science second.

I didn't see that in the forum rules. But please remember that science is reading God's second book. So science is also talking about what God tells us.

People in Jesus time ask Him to show some miracles so He can prove Himself as the Son of God. Jesus refused and said that there will be no miracles for this rebellious generation. If you were at that time, will you also ask Him to show a miracle as an evidence of His Godly nature? Jesus is the Son of God, why did He to refuse this very simple and scientific request?

First, why is performing a miracle a scientific request? Actually, it's a theological request, since miracles are theologically associated with God.

Second, according to the gospels, Jesus performed dozens of miracles! Therefore, I would appreciate a verse about Jesus refusing to perform miracles for that whole generation! If you have read the verse correctly, we have a problem, because according to the interpretation above, it appears that Jesus lied.

What I mean here is to tell you not to simply yell evidence, evidence. If your reasoning is not mature, then any evidence would not be useful to you.

Yes, you can have faulty reasoning. An example would be your reasoning that ocean levels are not very much less than 30% of the land surface, therefore there is enough water for a world-wide flood. That ignores that fraction of the land surface that is very far above water, such as the Alps (where there are deposits of marine animals at the peak).

Since the beginning of the earth, the sea water became more and more. And at the same time, the land also became larger and larger. Any question about that?

Very much so. We need to understand what you mean by "sea water". If you mean "sea water" as salty water, then the answer is "yes". The first seas did not contain much in the way of dissolved salts.

If you mean water gathered in large, deep bodies called "seas", then the answer is "no". The maps of earth in past ages I have seen show about the same percentage of the area of the earth covered in land and water as we have now. The distribution of land was different, with all the land concentrated in one continent for much of earth's history, but the percentage is about the same.

If you have different information, please cite a source for that information.

Now, the presence of marine animals in the rocks on top of the Alps is another falsification for Flood Geology. One of the ad hoc hypotheses in Flood Geology to try to explain the stratification of amphibians, reptiles, then mammals as you come up the geological column is that land animals fled to higher ground as the water rose in the Flood. So think about it. IF that happened, then we should find the fossils of land animals on top of the Alps, not marine animals. (BTW, the previous reasoning is called deductive logic.) That we find marine animals instead means that the ad-hoc hypothesis of Flood Geology is false. Since the ad-hoc hypothesis was devised to save Flood Geology from falsification by the fossil record, it means that Flood Geology is false.

 

[juvenissun]

First, why is performing a miracle a scientific request? Actually, it's a theological request, since miracles are theologically associated with God.

Second, according to the gospels, Jesus performed dozens of miracles! Therefore, I would appreciate a verse about Jesus refusing to perform miracles for that whole generation! If you have read the verse correctly, we have a problem, because according to the interpretation above, it appears that Jesus lied.

I described an incidence in the Bible and you do not think it is there. This situation is mature enough for me to give the "evidence". So here you have it.

Mk 8:11-12.

Pharisees want an evidence. That is VERY scientific.

 

[juvenissun]

Very much so. We need to understand what you mean by "sea water". If you mean "sea water" as salty water, then the answer is "yes". The first seas did not contain much in the way of dissolved salts.

If you mean water gathered in large, deep bodies called "seas", then the answer is "no". The maps of earth in past ages I have seen show about the same percentage of the area of the earth covered in land and water as we have now. The distribution of land was different, with all the land concentrated in one continent for much of earth's history, but the percentage is about the same.

If you have different information, please cite a source for that information.

Definition of sea: Gen 1: 9-10

May be the next question for you to ask is: what is the "land" then? Geologically, a land is more than just a place where the surface is dry. For example, an island in the sea should not be called a "land" as it is in verse 10. It is called a "temporary land".

 

[Orogeny]

From Juve:

What I mean here is to tell you not to simply yell evidence, evidence.

In science, when we make an assertion, we back it with evidence. You have made numerous assertions, none of which has been backed with evidence. You are not doing science, so stop trying to pretend you are.

If your reasoning is not mature, then any evidence would not be useful to you.

What does this even mean?

If you are still pushing, then I will tell you that there is NO evidence.

Ok, good. Now stop trying to say that the oceans are evidence, that the height of the continents is evidence, that giant 'crossbeds' are evidence, etc. etc. etc.

Do you still want to talk under that circumstance? Can you work on science with no evidence?

No, and neither can you, so stop trying it.

Since the beginning of the earth, the sea water became more and more. And at the same time, the land also became larger and larger. Any question about that?

No. On this point, in general, we agree. On this point, in general, regular old-earth geology agrees. But as you've already said, this is in no way evidence for a global flood.

 

[juvenissun]

From Juve:


In science, when we make an assertion, we back it with evidence. You have made numerous assertions, none of which has been backed with evidence. You are not doing science, so stop trying to pretend you are.


What does this even mean?


Ok, good. Now stop trying to say that the oceans are evidence, that the height of the continents is evidence, that giant 'crossbeds' are evidence, etc. etc. etc.

No, and neither can you, so stop trying it.



No. On this point, in general, we agree. On this point, in general, regular old-earth geology agrees. But as you've already said, this is in no way evidence for a global flood.

Fine. Then consider this question:

As the water became more and more, how did (or should) the land change so it would keep itself above the water?

Or do you prefer this: the relief on land became larger and larger, that would leave the sea level lower and lower in relative to the land.

Or do you prefer the third option, which has only one choice left, and you may fill it up on yourself.

-----

Do we need any evidence at this stage? Are we talking about science?

 

[Orogeny]

As the water became more and more, how did (or should) the land change so it would keep itself above the water?

The land (continents) does not care whether or not it is above water.

Or do you prefer this: the relief on land became larger and larger, that would leave the sea level lower and lower in relative to the land.

no

Or do you prefer the third option, which has only one choice left, and you may fill it up on yourself.

This is what probably happened (summarily, without too many big geology words): The earth condenced and cooled. As the formation of a crust progressed, the continents began to form due to implacement of granitic material, which is less dense than basaltic crust, causing the continents to sit higher on the mantle. At the same time, bombardment by comets and outgassing of volcanos began to contribute surficial, unassociated liquid water to what would eventually become the oceans. All of this took hundreds of millions of years.

But you knew all this because you have a geology degree, right?

Do we need any evidence at this stage? Are we talking about science?

Yes.

 

[juvenissun]

The land (continents) does not care whether or not it is above water.


no


This is what probably happened (summarily, without too many big geology words): The earth condenced and cooled. As the formation of a crust progressed, the continents began to form due to implacement of granitic material, which is less dense than basaltic crust, causing the continents to sit higher on the mantle. At the same time, bombardment by comets and outgassing of volcanos began to contribute surficial, unassociated liquid water to what would eventually become the oceans. All of this took hundreds of millions of years.

But you knew all this because you have a geology degree, right?


Yes.

The land does not care if it is in water or above water. But we do. If the land is in water, then we have a global flood.

So, the question now is about which process proceeded faster: The accumulation of water on the surface? or the manufacturing of granitic continent? Do you think these two processes could have dramatically different rate? or about a similar rate?

So far, what kind of evidence do you like to see?

 

[troodon]

So, the question now is about which process proceeded faster: The accumulation of water on the surface? or the manufacturing of granitic continent? Do you think these two processes could have dramatically different rate? or about a similar rate?

For the first ~3.5 billion years it didn't matter, because all life that we know of lived in the water.

 

[lucaspa]

I described an incidence in the Bible and you do not think it is there. This situation is mature enough for me to give the "evidence". So here you have it.

Mk 8:11-12.

Pharisees want an evidence. That is VERY scientific.

This is what Mark 8:11-12 says:
"And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

This is not scientific "evidence". Scientific evidence is found in the physical universe. What the pharisees want is a "sign from heaven". That's very different. Nor does it appear to be "miracles' like you state. Just before this in Mark 8 we have the miracle of the loaves and fishes! Just after these verses, we have Jesus performing a miracle to have a blind man see! So if "sign from heaven" is "miracle" as we think of it, then Jesus lied. In order to avoid that, "sign from heaven" must mean something else.

Juvenissun, if you are going to use scripture as "evidence" to back your arguments, please be good enough to use scripture accurately.

I find your attempt to tie the Pharisees to scientists very ironic, since in actuality the Pharisees were the Biblical literalists of their day.

 

[lucaspa]

Definition of sea: Gen 1: 9-10

Then that would be "sea" as a deep body of water. In that case the maps I have seen show about the same percentage of water and land in the past as we have today.

Do you have different information to counter that?

Geologically, a land is more than just a place where the surface is dry. For example, an island in the sea should not be called a "land" as it is in verse 10. It is called a "temporary land".

Where is "island" called "temporary land"? In the Bible? Or elsewhere? Are all islands only temporary? Under what time scale?

 

[lucaspa]

Fine. Then consider this question:

As the water became more and more, how did (or should) the land change so it would keep itself above the water?

Or do you prefer this: the relief on land became larger and larger, that would leave the sea level lower and lower in relative to the land.

Or do you prefer the third option, which has only one choice left, and you may fill it up on yourself.

-----

Do we need any evidence at this stage? Are we talking about science?

You should look at the January 2010 issue of Scientific American, there is an article on continent formation. How Asteroids Built the Continents: Scientific American

Right now the current theory is the second: tectonic forces put large "hills" and "valleys" in the surface of the earth. The "valleys" filled with water and were seas. A new hypothesis is that large asteroid impacts distorted the surface of the earth.

You seem to be starting with the assumption that the earth's surface was completely smooth and uniform. But considering how we know planets form and tectonic forces, that assumption is untenable.

 

[lucaspa]

The land does not care if it is in water or above water. But we do. If the land is in water, then we have a global flood.

If so, you are talking about quite a different event than that depicted in Genesis 6-8. You are talking about something that happened 4+ billion years ago before tectonic processes would have pushed up continents. That is so different from Genesis 6-8 that to call it a "global flood" distorts the phrase beyond all original meaning.

So far, what kind of evidence do you like to see?

The granite shield in Canada. Dating puts that back 4+ billion years and the evidence is that it has always been above water. No signs of ever being under a sea.

 

[Orogeny]

The land does not care if it is in water or above water. But we do. If the land is in water, then we have a global flood.

You understand we're talking about something that happened billions of years ago, yes?

So, the question now is about which process proceeded faster: The accumulation of water on the surface? or the manufacturing of granitic continent? Do you think these two processes could have dramatically different rate? or about a similar rate?

Who cares? And what does this have to do with your argument? This occured billions of years ago, before even microorganisms inhabited the planet. In what way does this help your case for a global flood as described in the Bible?

So far, what kind of evidence do you like to see?

Not sure what this sentence is referring to.

 

[juvenissun]

This is what Mark 8:11-12 says:
"And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

This is not scientific "evidence". Scientific evidence is found in the physical universe. What the pharisees want is a "sign from heaven". That's very different. Nor does it appear to be "miracles' like you state. Just before this in Mark 8 we have the miracle of the loaves and fishes! Just after these verses, we have Jesus performing a miracle to have a blind man see! So if "sign from heaven" is "miracle" as we think of it, then Jesus lied. In order to avoid that, "sign from heaven" must mean something else.

Juvenissun, if you are going to use scripture as "evidence" to back your arguments, please be good enough to use scripture accurately.

I find your attempt to tie the Pharisees to scientists very ironic, since in actuality the Pharisees were the Biblical literalists of their day.

We can certainly explore what does the "sign from Heaven" mean.

But how about Mt 16:1-4 ?
Do you still think Pharisees were not asking for a show of miracle?
Shows a miracle for what?
Do you see the word: PROVE? Is that a word for scientific understanding?

 

[juvenissun]

You understand we're talking about something that happened billions of years ago, yes?



Who cares? And what does this have to do with your argument? This occured billions of years ago, before even microorganisms inhabited the planet. In what way does this help your case for a global flood as described in the Bible?



Not sure what this sentence is referring to.

I am talking about whether a global flood happened in the history of the earth. Is that clear enough? Are you trying to find an excuse and run away from this issue?

 

[Orogeny]

I am talking about whether a global flood happened in the history of the earth. Is that clear enough? Are you trying to find an excuse and run away from this issue?

That's prefectly clear. You also stated earlier that there IS NO EVIDENCE that this event ever happened. That much is clear to me as well.

So tell me why, Juve, you keep forcing the issue when you've already stated that there is nothing to help your case.

 

[juvenissun]

If so, you are talking about quite a different event than that depicted in Genesis 6-8. You are talking about something that happened 4+ billion years ago before tectonic processes would have pushed up continents. That is so different from Genesis 6-8 that to call it a "global flood" distorts the phrase beyond all original meaning.



The granite shield in Canada. Dating puts that back 4+ billion years and the evidence is that it has always been above water. No signs of ever being under a sea.

Sorry, Lucaspa. I think you are a biologist. When you talk about biology, I listen and try to learn by asking questions, but not to make stupid statement beyond my understanding. To me, you should try to do the same on geology.

I could not reply many of your comments. I do not know where to start. If you are interested to learn geology, then begin with a simple question.

 

[Orogeny]

Juve, there is nothing wrong with the post you quoted. Quit skirting the issue and address the post.

 

[juvenissun]

That's prefectly clear. You also stated earlier that there IS NO EVIDENCE that this event ever happened. That much is clear to me as well.

So tell me why, Juve, you keep forcing the issue when you've already stated that there is nothing to help your case.

Not a bad question.

The answer to that is: If there were no evidence, why not?

If evidences could be found to explain an hypothesis, then it is a relatively easy study. If an idea lacked the support of evidence (imagine an unsolved murder case), there could be three possibilities: 1. the idea is wrong. 2. the evidence is hard to find, or 3. we do not know what to look for. So, before we really tried, we should not abandon the idea. In the case of a global flood, the third possibility is most likely. And it is the hardest one to deal with.

For the worse, if the idea is a religious belief, then even no evidence could be found during one's life time, the idea should still be kept as a truth. This is called "faith".

By the way, I did not push the discussion. I was pushed.

 

[juvenissun]

Juve, there is nothing wrong with the post you quoted. Quit skirting the issue and address the post.

Oh there are several mistakes. For example he thought a granitic continent was "pushed up" from underground (mantle?) like a piece of wood popped up to the surface of water.