Biblical Flood II

[Orogeny]

why not?

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

1. the idea is wrong.

The idea is wrong. This has been demonstrated.

2. the evidence is hard to find

If a global flood as described in the bible occurred, the evidence would not be hard to find, it would surround us.

3. we do not know what to look for.

We do know what to look for. Now I know what's coming, you're going to say 'well what should we look for?' I've already told you what we should look for, it has been looked for, and it has never, ever been found.

Possibilities number 2 and 3 have been shown to be false, so obviously point number 1 is correct: The idea of a global flood is wrong.

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.

No it is not, as has been shown to you abundantly.

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".

Then call it faith and move on. Deal?

 

[Orogeny]

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.

I do not see that he ever compared granite to wood (even if that was his comparison, it would hold a measure of truth). While his wording was not perfect, he was conceptually correct.

 

[lucaspa]

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?

1. "Prove" is not a word for "scientific understanding". As I teach the graduate students, you cannot (strictly speaking) "prove" by either the inductive or deductive logic used by science. What scientists mean by "prove" is "falsify all the alternative hypotheses we can think of except this one." What science can definitely do is disprove -- by deductive logic. "Proof" is for theology or the law, not for science.

2. Mt. 16:1-4 is the same as the earlier verses. What are the Sadducees and Pharisees asking?
"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven."

Jesus replies two ways:
"O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times? "

IOW, the "signs of the times" (not of heaven, notice) are already there, but they will not see.

Then Jesus says:
"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. "

So, O Biblical scholar, what was the "sign of Jonas"?

The next several verses after that Jesus mentions the miracle of the loaves and fishes. But Matthew is clear about his point:
"Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. "

And what was that doctrine? Biblical literalism. The Pharisees and Sadducees were not "scientists". They were theologians. Their theological doctrine was wrong.

Since you revere the Bible so much, why isn't there a doctrine against making the Bible say something it does not?

 

[lucaspa]

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?

Is that all you are talking about? As Orogeny and I have both commented, having the earth covered by water 4+ billion years ago before the formation of the continents has no resemblance to a "global flood" as creationists use the term.

In fact, such a situation could not even be called a "flood". For a "flood", you need dry land that is then covered with water. What you are talking about here is never any dry land. That is, the initial condition was an earth covered with water, with land being lifted above water level later. What you are describing is closer to Genesis 1:9-10.

But, of course, even here the evidence God left us in His Creation refutes that idea.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

All you did was duck the issue by trying to call my "credentials" into question. I really, really, doubt your credentials of "geologist". I have read geology texts (yes, biologists read outside their specialty. A science geek is a science geek.) and they flatly contradict what you say.

You can start wherever you want. Why don't you explain how the ad hoc hypothesis of Flood Geology -- that the stratification of fossils in the fossil record -- is explained by mobility of animals to flee the rising waters, and how marine sediments at the top of the Alps is consistent with that ad hoc hypothesis.

Then, what I would like you to do is tell me how an earth initially covered with water before the appearance of continents is, in any shape or form, similar to the flood described in Genesis 6-8.

Then, you can go back to the pictures of Siccar Point in Biblical Flood and explain to us how those could possibly be laid down by a single flood.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Sorry, but that wasn't my post. It would help the discussion if you looked carefully at who posts what. That might help a descent into ad hominem.

Orogeny posted that: #6 I only said that the continents formed by "tectonic activity". Nothing about "floating".

As it happens, your statement is a misrepresentation of what Orogeny posted:
"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."

Notice that Orogeny was trying not to be too technical. He said nothing about "pushed up". Rather, as the molten rock cooled, granite is less dense than basalt. Therefore by simple density and gravity, the granite is going to be "on top". Like ice is going to float on water. This means "hills" of granite with basalt lying "lower". As water formed, the water went to the "lower" areas (gravity again), leaving the granite "hills" above water level.

If you are going to disagree with this on a "geological" level, please do us the courtesy of posting a geology source. Either a textbook, scientific article, or .edu site. Thank you.

 

[juvenissun]

[/COLOR]

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.



The idea is wrong. This has been demonstrated.


If a global flood as described in the bible occurred, the evidence would not be hard to find, it would surround us.


We do know what to look for. Now I know what's coming, you're going to say 'well what should we look for?' I've already told you what we should look for, it has been looked for, and it has never, ever been found.

Possibilities number 2 and 3 have been shown to be false, so obviously point number 1 is correct: The idea of a global flood is wrong.


No it is not, as has been shown to you abundantly.


Then call it faith and move on. Deal?

You do that. I won't. The reason is very simple: I can learn A LOT geology from not denying it. It is more than faith. It is academics, and a lot of other top quality benefits. You don't want it. Be my guest.

OJ won the criminal suit. It is too bad that nobody continued the investigation.

 

[Orogeny]

Ok. I'm done here. Juve is not even attempting to respond to anyone's posts, and is making ad hominems and unevidenced assertions left and right in his posts. This conversation has gone on for pages, and all that has happened is that every few posts, Juve changes his stance from 'There is no evidence for a global flood' to 'There is evidence for a global flood'. I cannot be bothered to try debating someone who has no geological background and who displays the rampant cognitive dissonance that this gentleman does.

Good day, sirs. If you would like to discuss geology scientifically, please PM me.

 

[Mallon]

Juve is not even attempting to respond to anyone's posts

I'm surprised it took you that long to figure out! Speaking with juvie is like taking crazy pills.

 

[The Lady Kate]

You do that. I won't. The reason is very simple: I can learn A LOT geology from not denying it. It is more than faith. It is academics, and a lot of other top quality benefits. You don't want it. Be my guest.

So learn it... and come back when you do.

 

[Orogeny]

I'm surprised it took you that long to figure out! Speaking with juvie is like taking crazy pills.

I knew it, but I was trying to squeeze a little sense out of his combined posts. I figured there had to be something in all that text that was worth discussing. I was wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

So learn it... and come back when you do.

Coming back? Are you kidding? Phil 3:14.

 

[juvenissun]

Then, what I would like you to do is tell me how an earth initially covered with water before the appearance of continents is, in any shape or form, similar to the flood described in Genesis 6-8.

Gen 7:11.
Then, 7:19.

 

[lucaspa]

Gen 7:11.
Then, 7:19.

that's not similar at all, because those verses have people, plants, and animals on the continents. After all, Gen 7:11 specifically mentions Noah. If you have a flood before the formation of the continents, then people, plants, and animals do not exist yet. It would be more similar to Genesis 1:9.

 

[lucaspa]

The reason is very simple: I can learn A LOT geology from not denying it. It is more than faith. It is academics, and a lot of other top quality benefits.

There is all the evidence that a global flood as in Genesis 7:11 and 7:19 never happened. So please list for us what geology you "learn" from believing it happened.

List for us the "quality benefits", particularly academic, you get from insisting that there was a world-wide flood.

The only "benefit" I can see is the very dubious benefit of denying reality.

 

[lucaspa]

If you would like to discuss geology scientifically, please PM me.

So let's get back to geology. Davis Young has listed some geological problems with Flood Geology. Here is one:

"known rates of heat flow from bodies of crystallizing magma pose problems for those who contend that all fossil-bearing rocks were laid down during the single year of the biblical flood. On the New Jersey side of the Hudson River opposite Manhattan, there is a geological formation known as the Palisades sill, a thick sheet of rock of igneous origin that intruded into red sandstones and shales, Flood geologists of the Whitcomb-Morris school hold that the sand-stones and shales were laid down during the course of the flood, and hence they would logically have to assert that the magma was injected into this material during the course of the flood, cooled, hardened, tilted, and eroded before the other flood sediments settled atop it. But this would not have been possible. We know on the basis of heat flow considerations and the thickness of the sill that it would have taken several hundred years to cool and crystallize in the way it now appears."

I live in New York and have seen the Palisades, thus this one is interesting. I bolded the "crystallize" because the size of the crystals is determined by the rate of cooling. The slower the rate of cooling, the larger the size of the crystals: Cooling rate and crystal size

The Palisades sill contains 3 types of coarse granite. Coarse = large crystals.
IGNEOUS ROCKS

This is why Young says it is impossible that the Palisades were formed during a world-wide flood. If they were not, then the sandstones below and above them were not.

 

[juvenissun]

There is all the evidence that a global flood as in Genesis 7:11 and 7:19 never happened. So please list for us what geology you "learn" from believing it happened.

List for us the "quality benefits", particularly academic, you get from insisting that there was a world-wide flood.

The only "benefit" I can see is the very dubious benefit of denying reality.

One of such benefit is that I can see "reality" in a more proper way.

Imagine that you observe a street fight in NY. Then lift yourself up to the air and see all activities in a block, in a city, and in the metropolis, etc. The street fight is still a reality. But you see more and the meaning of that particular reality changes with your scope of view.

If you focused on the part of the Flood which is hard to understand, and you discarded the whole thing, then you missed the big part.

 

[The Lady Kate]

One of such benefit is that I can see "reality" in a more proper way.

Imagine that you observe a street fight in NY. Then lift yourself up to the air and see all activities in a block, in a city, and in the metropolis, etc. The street fight is still a reality. But you see more and the meaning of that particular reality changes with your scope of view.

If you focused on the part of the Flood which is hard to understand, and you discarded the whole thing, then you missed the big part.

We're not talking about anything being "hard to understand," we're talking about evidence that something just plain didn't happen... which is actually quite easy to understand.

Let's go back to that street fight in NY that you observed. As you relay the details to me, I point out that what you describe cannot possibly have happened, because I know for a fact that one of the "fighters" you described was in Los Angeles at the time of the "fight." Ergo, the event cannot be as you described it.

See? Easy to understand.

 

[juvenissun]

We're not talking about anything being "hard to understand," we're talking about evidence that something just plain didn't happen... which is actually quite easy to understand.

Let's go back to that street fight in NY that you observed. As you relay the details to me, I point out that what you describe cannot possibly have happened, because I know for a fact that one of the "fighters" you described was in Los Angeles at the time of the "fight." Ergo, the event cannot be as you described it.

See? Easy to understand.

I think you misidentify the person. See, it is not that easy after all.

 

[Papias]

Maybe lady Kate has thousands of genetic tests showing that the person is the same person.

We do, actually, have thousands of genetic tests that show that the flood didn't happen.

Papias