• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The word translated as "earth" is "eretz", meaning "land." It is used for example as "eretz Israel", the land of Israel. So it doesn't mean the whole world. That's just not supported by the verse.
That does not help with the obvious selective rage after an expression of justified and righteous Wrath aimed at the whole race. In fact it seems a view that makes those expressions not better than petty reactions attributed to the pagan gods for natural events/calamities. Am not sure what the lesson would be from such a "un-literal" understanding of the verse. God is Powerful, makes idle threats and is petty????
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How a complete run down on How God told Noah to make a big boat, what was to be done with it, how to build it, and what not can be taken as non literal is honestly, completely beyond me. That is if one believes in God and that the bible is actually an account of all God wants us to know. However, if one is an atheist, or somewhere in between as it sometimes goes these days, and they take little or none of the bible as fact, I can certainly understand that, but otherwise, I do not. The account was detailed, lengthy and not in anything close to parable form.

How bout he "story" of Christ, a complete rundown on his life, what he was there for, then the actual carrying out of his purpose? I don't understand how that can be taken as literal and not the flood.

Literals and non literals are "generally" fairly clear in the bible, and this one, at least IMO, doesn't even get close to being non literal. No indications whatsoever that I can see, make that so.

I recall the Hamm/Nye Creation vs. Evolution debate, when Nye asked something to the effect of how we know what can be taken literally from the bible, and Hamm calmly replied, something to the effect of "some things are to be taken literally and some things not" and Nye as I recall anyway turned in disghust, his body language making it appear that was ridiculous, ot "see there", when ineed it made perfect sense, and there was no "see there" to it. I would have thought even an evolutionists would have noticed Nye's unfair/odd response. The debate is easy to find on youtube, but I'm not sifting through 2.5hrs to find it, however I would be happy to be corrected on anything I said about it that is not factual. Again, it's as I recall, but something I paid close attention too at the time.

We have little trouble discerning literal from non literal on most everything else, but when it comes to the bible the question comes up all too often, even with things that are pretty darned clearly one or the other. I personally think the created confusion on that can come in handy for some, and that's all the question amounts to, at least at times... a tool for those who want to do away with one Biblical fact or another, and turn it into a non literal untruth..

I should add, these are general thoughts I'm reminded of but not directed at anyone in particular. It happens all over the place, not just by a person or group here. :)
Agreed. To suggest that activity was to save him from a regional calamity when simply telling him to move (Abraham, Lot and Moses come to mind) baffles me as well. He could have moved to safe ground built a new house and returned several times in case the kids left something in the time it had to take them just to gather the material for that boat. Could even spent time doing rallies to try to get his neighbors to move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenny'sID
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Rather it's like saying "all things are possible with God, but that doesn't mean we should believe God has done everything possible for Him."
Suggesting He did something the Bible says He did is not the same as simply acknowledging His Power to do it. We both seem to agree He could. Neither is it a suggestion He could make a rock so big He could not lift it, hopefully neither of us have a problem there either. The only issue I have is the suggestion we can exclude a supernatural event from having occurred simply because there is no observable evidence supporting what a naturally occurring global flood would have to produce which we would obviously easily see some trace of. Am not willing to take that leap and our God does not appear to me to be the sort that demands our love by force of demonstration of His Power and Wrath against those who refuse to freely choose to love Him.

I do not see that as a problem with my believing He did what He clearly said He would do in dramatically and radically changing the earth, the numbers of animals and practically wiping out the entire human race. Take away all the details of the actual event. Forget it is even done in some manner that whatever else we might imagine could also have been happened, it included lots of water. Forget all that. The lead up and the aftermath statements alone speak of a global intention and then describe a global effect.

Even granting a need for a boat to avoid a regional disaster, the scale of that project is beyond any reasoned response to a pending regional disaster. God is not fickle. He did not ask Lot to build a giant asbestos sphere to save his family and as many local animals as he could gather. He told Lot to move it and quickly.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
.

How bout he "story" of Christ, a complete rundown on his life, what he was there for, then the actual carrying out of his purpose? I don't understand how that can be taken as literal and not the flood.
That the stories occur in different books written many centuries apart in different languages by different authors to satisfy entirely different literary agendas means nothing to you?

In any case, by your reasoning Mark Twain's autobiography must be fiction because he also wrote Tom Sawyer and thus there can be no truth of any kind in either work. Makes sense, right?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,093
12,976
78
✟432,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
That does not help with the obvious selective rage after an expression of justified and righteous Wrath aimed at the whole race. In fact it seems a view that makes those expressions not better than petty reactions attributed to the pagan gods for natural events/calamities. Am not sure what the lesson would be from such a "un-literal" understanding of the verse.

God is just, but merciful.

God is Powerful, makes idle threats and is petty????

That would be the literalist interpretation, wouldn't it?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,029
9,029
65
✟428,801.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
I quite agree, but there are different ways that the story can be literal/non-literal.

Does it matter that the unnamed 'man' in the parable of the Good Samaritan be left 'half dead' as opposed to 'nearly dead' or 'with a broken leg' or 'unconscious'?

Is the edification about whether it was a Levite rather than some other kind of person who passed by? Or is the edification about answering the question 'who is your neighbor?' Does the edification require that these things ever happened literally?

Is the edification of the story of the flood about the depth of the water? Is the edification about whether it was a raven or a parrot that was first released? Or is it about the wrath of god about sin, but also his future promise to withhold similar punishment, and his mercy in saving his people.

If Peter can see the story of Noah as a symbol of baptism

"to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

If the story has a non-literal meaning, must there have been a literal flood, regardless of its size?

Yes there must be because the Bible says it happened. There is no scriptural evidence that it is only a story and not true history.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Directly on topic.

I am being told that all of the geologic evidence should be ignored because there was a magical flood. I am calling hogwash.



I am saying that a myth is not a historical account of a real occurrence.
But you didn't address whether there's any truth to them, which is the question.
We have a clear evolutionary trend starting 3 million years ago. The evidence is pretty clear.
How much further have they dug?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
If I was doing what you say, you'd be right. But mankind's actions are as natural as a cheetah's. And what I've been saying all along is that climate change is normal, natural. Not primarily man-caused.
The process of warming through greenhouse gas is natural. However, the increase of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution is due to fossil fuel emissions, which is shown through isotope ratio analysis. Nature is not putting the additional CO2 into the atmosphere, man is.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God is just, but merciful.



That would be the literalist interpretation, wouldn't it?
How so.
Something would be petty and an idle threat only if something is said that is only partially carried out and backed up.

Am going to erase mankind along with animals and destroy the earth in the process because of righteous anger at mankind's behavior, followed by just erase these select few over here, these specific animals in this small area and destroy this small part of the earth over here. That is at least a change of heart if not resembling an act of childish petulance typical of pagan gods in mythology.

I guess I could understand not wanting to paint God like pagans do, so let's alter the myth. But as long as one is changing it, why not change it so the set up, the event and the aftermath matches what is said to occur rather than exaggerate and make God appear fickle and petulant?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
42,757
13,591
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟865,008.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The Arctic sea ice maximum is on track to be the smallest in the modern record by about 100,000 square miles. For the last 40 years the sea ice maximum has been declining at 3.2% per decade. In fact there is almost no multi-year heavy sea ice left. As a side note the Antarctic sea ice minimum is on track to be the smallest ever observed. On a more local note, the Great Lakes are almost entirely ice free. Lakes Erie and Huron used to freeze over completely. It wasn't that long ago (~10 yrs?) that a couple of young men walked across Lake Erie. The Gulf of St Lawrence is also almost ice free.

The upper one third of the United States and all of Canada was once covered by glacier ice. It all disappeared 11,700 years ago, long before SUV's, factories, or humans exhaling carbon dioxide. Nobody is complaining about it though.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
So science cannot disprove supernatural event or say the evidence proves it did not happen.

Science could not disprove the claim that God planted fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene. Does that mean we have to ignore all fingerprint and DNA evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
So whatever one imagines this event to be, it was globally catastrophic and I believe all the legends suggest very few humans at all survived it, certainly the Jewish version of it suggests as much.

And yet all those cultures soldiered on without a hiccup. There is no gap in Chinese history, as one example.

On top of that, there is no interruption in known geologic processes, such as annual lake varves and annual ice layers.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Show me your evidence for "95%." Since 83% of all internet statistics are made up, I'd just like to see the data.

A lot of cultures do describe a flood, but not all of them worldwide, and they wildly differ as to what happened in the flood they describe.

Which leads us to conclude that either people settle near rivers and have enountered big floods at some time in their history, or that myths are not very accurate ways to investigate pre-history.

Mostly, thought, I'd like to see the data for 95%.
As soon as someone shows me what 97% of scientists agree with concerning global warming, you got it.
There was a flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East back when there were people to see it. But not worldwide. Since the Bible doesn't say it's worldwide, that's really not a problem.



Or big floods have occurred more than once. One of those.



Or those other things. Evidence says "one of those other things."



Even the oil companies now agree it's man-made. Pretty hard, now that we're deep on a sunspot minimum, and the Earth is still warming up. Nature is working to cool it off and man is working to warm it up.



Somewhere between now and a few million years ago. And nothing.
The biblical global flood supposedly covered the planet. Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall and the diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.

So, here are the calculations:

First, Everest

V= 4/3 * pi * r^3

= 4/3 * pi * (6387.248 km)^3

= 1.09151 x 10^12 cubic kilometres


Now, the Earth at sea level


V = 4/3 * pi * r^3

= 4/3 * pi * (6378.4 km)^3

= 1.08698 x 10^12 cubic kilometres

The difference between these two figures, 4.525 x 10^9 cubic kilometres is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth. Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000 cubic kilometres. This is one helluva lot of water.

For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water necessary.


Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimetre so:

4.252x10^9 km^3 of water,

x 10^6 (= cubic meters),

x 10^6 (= cubic centimetres),

x 1 g/cm^3 (= grams),

x 1o^-3 (= kilograms),

= 4.525X 10^21 kg.

Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsonian advance (the latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 km^2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in the zones of accumulation and much thinner elsewhere at the ablating edges. Now, 1.00x10^7 km^2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00x10^7 km^3 of ice. Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x10^9 km^3 of water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222 percent of the water needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 BP as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 BP flood event. Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations some 21,000 years preceding the supposed biblical flood, the mass of the ice had actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy).


Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terrains, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy, as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands. Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.


Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims relating to global flooding. Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (5 m) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 5,155.7 m, or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted additional 4.525 x 10^9 km^3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 10^9 km^3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 10^9 km^3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C.


Someone has suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, is staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.


Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 10^9 km^3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 10^21 kg. When this amount of water is floating above the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:

Potential energy: E=M*g*H, where

M = mass of water,

g = gravitational constant and,

H = height of water above surface.

Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 10^21 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 10^20 kilograms daily. Using H as 16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 10^25 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m^2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 10^25/(4*3.14159* ((6386)^2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m^2/s.

Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T^4 (normal)


E (normal) = 215

E (increase) = 391,935.0958

T (normal) = 280.


Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.


The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's well above melting temperature of lead). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6 ft deep.

Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.


It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible.


By Dr. Marty Leipzig at:


*http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm
All well and good. But who's to say that Everest was that tall at the time of a proposed flood, and who's to say that the depth of the deepest parts of the ocean were as deep as they are today. We know that land masses are constantly changing, and so is the sea floor.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
The upper one third of the United States and all of Canada was once covered by glacier ice. It all disappeared 11,700 years ago, long before SUV's, factories, or humans exhaling carbon dioxide. Nobody is complaining about it though.

Doesn't change the fact that increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere will capture more heat and cause temperatures to rise.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
42,757
13,591
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟865,008.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Doesn't change the fact that increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere will capture more heat and cause temperatures to rise.

A dismissal of what I said without even addressing it. All you did is repeat something that isn't relevant to what I said.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
No one has said evidence gets excluded.

That is exactly what you have said. You have said that evidence for local flooding over millions of years has to be excluded because a supernatural flood could produce the same evidence, for no apparent reason.

You also claim that you can exclude any evidence you like if you decide that something supernatural is involved. By that very reasoning, I could exclude DNA and fingerprint evidence from a trial by merely claiming that God could have planted them at the crime scene. This is entirely in line with your argument.

Such a global flood could be imagined to lay down some evidence - which be easiest found today in sedimentary rock. Any such rock at all is in plus column - not proof - a plus as in maybe.

Those rocks date from different time periods, so they aren't evidence for a global flood.

What can logically and reasonably be excluded by Christians, agnostics and atheist alike is that science knows what such an event by God could or could not do - and therefore give us the ability to say with any confidence what the evidence from it should even look like now.

Just like God could plant DNA and fingerprints at a crime scene.

It assumes everything we see was laid down the way we see floods and bodies of water transporting and laying down sediments, then geological processes acting to end up with what we have now. That is assuming a lot of things over time have occurred exactly in the natural order that we claim to know such things as they are observable to us should occur (naturally).

That is no different than assuming a fingerprint was put in place by someone touching the surface where the fingerprint is found.

Omnipotence and omniscience rather suggest He could do such and more if desired, as well as His knowing if He didn't His Presence would eventually be declared (and so feared by many) forever more to all mankind.

Again, just as God could plant fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Supernatural events may or may not leave natural or scientifically measurable evidence behind. Being super-natural means that it's not natural, and therefore not measurable by scientific methods.

Sometimes athiests will come here wanting to debate whether God exists, or whether a miraculous event could have occurred. But it's impossible to come to a common understanding when one person is talking about the scientific and natural while the other is talking about things not measurable.

The supernaturalist position becomes untenable when they reject evidence for natural processes. As soon as you argue that supernatural forces will produce evidence that is indistinguishable from natural processes you have entered the arena of Solipsisms. You might as well argue that the the universe was created last Thursday, complete with false evidence and false memories.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
How a complete run down on How God told Noah to make a big boat, what was to be done with it, how to build it, and what not can be taken as non literal is honestly, completely beyond me. That is if one believes in God and that the bible is actually an account of all God wants us to know. However, if one is an atheist, or somewhere in between as it sometimes goes these days, and they take little or none of the bible as fact, I can certainly understand that, but otherwise, I do not. The account was detailed, lengthy and not in anything close to parable form.

What you avoid are the facts found in the Creation itself. The facts don't support a recent global flood. This evidence is the same for atheist and theist alike.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.