Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

Sarcasm doesn't add value to your position.

It isn't sarcasm. It's metaphor.

 

[Obliquinaut]

(YOu need to add back in a [/quote] tag)

Erosional evidence can be filled back in. LEAVING EVIDENCE OF THE EROSION. This is sometimes called an UNCONFORMITY.

(Is there any aspect of intro geology you do know about? You claim you read geology articles, but gosh ahmighty I don't know how you do because you seem to know almost no terms from the field).

 

[Obliquinaut]

Once again I'm talking about a rising flood, not a constantly flowing river.

-sigh- This is really getting frustrating. And again, I'm talking about a flood. WHich has a BOTTOM and a FRONT. The FRONT encroaches on the land causing....wait, I'm repeating myself.

I really do wonder what geology journals you read your articles from. Really, really wonder.

 

[Obliquinaut]

1. All the science in the world cannot be certain of what the climate or temporary state of the world was at the time of Noah.

Actually they kinda can. It's called paleoclimatology. It involves (for the case of Noah which is only a couple thousand years ago) tree-ring data, preserved organic matter buried, stable isotope data etc.

2. The issue of whether all the critters on Earth at that time could have fit on the Ark and whether there would have been room for feed for all of them is moot since with God, all things are possible.

Which is fine as "MIRACLE". Science has no say when miracles are invoked. By the same token one cannot then also rely on science to bolster support for the miracle.

3. The issue of whether a global flood of Biblical proportions would have contaminated all the arable land with salt is also moot because a) it was God's flood and therefore He would dictate whether it would or would not do harm

Miracle.

and b) the seas might not have been so salty at that time

Claim without evidence.

. Or c) crops then might have been more salt resistant-

claim without evidence.

-there is scientific research going on right now to develop large scale commodity crops (wheat, corn, barley) that would thrive when irrigated with undiluted sea water. There are already crops that thrive using diluted sea water.

Yes, but that does not mean there is support for the previous claim.

In other words, it is interesting to think about, even to debate the pros and cons of it all, but there is plenty of argument and thought on both sides that we need not think poorly of the other person and/or his argument on the topic.

Agreed...unless the person is relying on their personal ignorance of a given topic that others have some facility or experience with.

The reason I get kind of snippy and nasty is when I run into someone who proposes "X", is shown how "X" really works in this particular field and then acts like that statement has no value. That indeed they will stick with "X", not because they can defend "X", but rather because they seem to feel that actual technical knowledge of a topic is somehow silly and useless.

It is an insult to those who have actually taken the time to get that knowledge.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I'm glad you mentioned salt. Salt would have been the agent of purification that killed "all living substance"

WIth the exception of animals and plants that already live in salt water. (That's why fishermen are seen on the OCEAN as well as fresh water)

 

[AV1611VET]

It is an insult to those who have actually taken the time to get that knowledge.

What's the matter, Obliquinaut? can't get him to say something you can ridicule?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm glad you mentioned salt. Salt would have been the agent of purification that killed "all living substance", thus ridding the earth of the widespread corruption that it suffered. This might also explain why there are so many arid places, deserts, and a general lack of thick topsoil across the earth.

That would make a nice addition to the metaphorical explanation.

However, the world's most famous desert, the Sahara, probably didn't develop until fairly recent times, quite possibly within the last 1000 years. Before that it was an enormous fresh water lake.

'A reconstructed lake level history for the ancient Lake Mega-Chad, once the largest lake in Africa, suggests that a North African humid period, with increased precipitation in the Sahara region, ended abruptly around 5,000 years ago, and that the lake’s Bodélé basin, now a large source of atmospheric dust, may not have dried out until around 1,000 years ago,' the team wrote.

But the researchers' discovery shows this fertilisation could only have happened 1,000 years ago – leaving a riddle as to how the jungle received vital nutrients before then.

The researchers found that the change took place in just a few hundred years – much more quickly than previously considered.​

Read more: Scientists discover Sahara Desert contained the world’s largest lake named Mega Chad | Daily Mail Online

The history of the development of current conditions, geography, geology, and the whys and hows of Planet Earth continue to be a work in progress. And they are fascinating. And it sometimes could explain why ancient historians of Biblical times included some of the imagery they included in the ancient texts.

It is all fascinating to me.

 

[Obliquinaut]

What's the matter, Obliquinaut? can't get him to say something you can ridicule?

It is not a desire to get someone to say something that I can ridicule. I would dearly LOVE it if OWG would say something that indicates he has any facility with the topic he's trying to forcefit his hypothesis.

It is clear most of you guys couldn't last more than a couple minutes in an actual scientific discussion, I mean among people who are technically skilled in this area. But the most annoying part is that you seem to lack the humility necessary to understand that you are "outgunned" in this debate.

I have personally outlined strategies for OWG which would allow him to completely walk away unscathed. He could "win" by simply removing the debate from an area that many of us on here know about. He could pull it over to "Miracle" and be done!

I am hoping to be gracious enough to provide him with an "out", but he refuses to take it. And as such he's walking into an area that I and Subduction and others on here appear to know a lot more about.

Can I ask you a question which you will honestly answer? If came on here and continually misrepresented the Bible and it was clear I had never read the bible but rather some things someone somewhere wrote about it and I was continually shown to be in error: would you simply sit back and say "Well Obliquinaut has every right to misrepresent the Bible based on poor understanding of it?"

Please answer this honestly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually they kinda can. It's called paleoclimatology. It involves (for the case of Noah which is only a couple thousand years ago) tree-ring data, preserved organic matter buried, stable isotope data etc.



Which is fine as "MIRACLE". Science has no say when miracles are invoked. By the same token one cannot then also rely on science to bolster support for the miracle.



Miracle.



Claim without evidence.



claim without evidence.



Yes, but that does not mean there is support for the previous claim.



Agreed...unless the person is relying on their personal ignorance of a given topic that others have some facility or experience with.

The reason I get kind of snippy and nasty is when I run into someone who proposes "X", is shown how "X" really works in this particular field and then acts like that statement has no value. That indeed they will stick with "X", not because they can defend "X", but rather because they seem to feel that actual technical knowledge of a topic is somehow silly and useless.

It is an insult to those who have actually taken the time to get that knowledge.

I'm sorry but I rarely respond to chopped up posts like this however well intentioned they are. I find they too often destroy context, are often a factor in derailed threads as they sometimes go off in all directions,
and they are really boring to read.

So I will just respond to your first sentence. Paleontology is invaluable to us in understanding the science and development of life on Earth. . .but. . .at best it is an inexact science that can only inform us generally with some expectation of accuracy say within several thousand years or sometimes within tens of thousands of years or more.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I ask you a question which you will honestly answer? If came on here and continually misrepresented the Bible and it was clear I had never read the bible but rather some things someone somewhere wrote about it and I was continually shown to be in error: would you simply sit back and say "Well Obliquinaut has every right to misrepresent the Bible based on poor understanding of it?"

Please answer this honestly.

I'll be glad to answer it honestly.

I would say something to the effect of: "Well Obliquinaut is obviously a scientist."

In my years here, I've seen cut-and-paste after cut-and-paste by those who have walked the halls of higher academia of websites that list errors in the Bible.

And even though I clearly pwn the easier ones, they just keep cutting and pasting.

Only a scientist would seriously do that; and frankly, I'm surprised you haven't done it as well.

You find me a scientist who knows the difference between miracle & magic, ex nihilo & ex materia, dispensation theology & covenant theology, heaven & heavens, diabolical plagiarism/mockery & equal airtime, love-thine-enemy & convert-or-die, Jesus Christ & Allah, LORD & Lord & lord in the KJB, Jehovah & Yahweh, virgin & young woman, child & fetus, moral & ethical, and I'll eat my hat.

 

[Obliquinaut]

And even though I clearly pwn the easier ones, they just keep cutting and pasting.

Only a scientist would seriously do that; and frankly, I'm surprised you haven't done it as well.

This is precisely what many Creationists do when critiquing science when they use science to support their beliefs.

Perhaps we all do it (I have actually read the Bible and I've seen the exegetical acrobatics necessary to wave away some of the inconsistencies, some of which I am fine with, some of which are kind of painful to look at), but the point remains: this is what I find annoying in these discussions.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I'm sorry but I rarely respond to chopped up posts like this however well intentioned they are. I find they too often destroy context, are often a factor in derailed threads as they sometimes go off in all directions,
and they are really boring to read.

So I will just respond to your first sentence. Paleontology is invaluable to us in understanding the science and development of life on Earth. . .but. . .at best it is an inexact science that can only inform us generally with some expectation of accuracy say within several thousand years or sometimes within tens of thousands of years or more.

Really? That's interesting. What would you say about finding a shark's tooth in a shale in the middle of the north American continent? Would that not be a strong indicator of a moment in time that indicates that, indeed, there is a very specific set of circumstances? (btw: I have done this very thing).

Also: when dealing with stuff that happened only a couple thousand years ago, it is often to get some rather fine grained information.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is precisely what many Creationists do when critiquing science when they use science to support their beliefs.

Perhaps we all do it (I have actually read the Bible and I've seen the exegetical acrobatics necessary to wave away some of the inconsistencies, some of which I am fine with, some of which are kind of painful to look at), but the point remains: this is what I find annoying in these discussions.

But why? Why is the other person's expression of faith a matter of annoyance only in that it is different than your/our/my own?

I only find annoying those who presume to disrespect or pass judgment on those who see things or believe differently. I too sometimes think them wrong on many points, but what does that matter? I just feel in my bones that God is far less concerned with how we study theology or what theology we embrace than he is concerned with the content of our hearts and how we consider/love him and his creation.

I love to debate these kinds of things with people who also love to debate them and who do not pass judgment on those holding an opposing point of view. In so doing we have to defend our own opinions and understandings and generally expand our own field of knowledge in the process.

But IMO it should be fun, and not a point to create contention among us.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ah, so that is why there are no fish, whales, sharks, crabs, shrimps or other aquatic life in the sea today then.

I always wondered why that was.

Salt water critters were made to live in salt water.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But why? Why is the other person's expression of faith a matter of annoyance only in that it is different than your/our/my own?

I only find annoying those who presume to disrespect or pass judgment on those who see things or believe differently. I too sometimes think them wrong on many points, but what does that matter? I just feel in my bones that God is far less concerned with how we study theology or what theology we embrace than he is concerned with the content of our hearts and how we consider/love him and his creation.

I love to debate these kinds of things with people who also love to debate them and who do not pass judgment on those holding an opposing point of view. In so doing we have to defend our own opinions and understandings and generally expand our own field of knowledge in the process.

But IMO it should be fun, and not a point to create contention among us.

Unrelenting ad hominem attacks and sarcasm are the 'mo' of many atheists that contend with creationists here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? That's interesting. What would you say about finding a shark's tooth in a shale in the middle of the north American continent? Would that not be a strong indicator of a moment in time that indicates that, indeed, there is a very specific set of circumstances? (btw: I have done this very thing).

Also: when dealing with stuff that happened only a couple thousand years ago, it is often to get some rather fine grained information.

Indeed. I can't remember if it was this thread or another that I mentioned the sea fossils evident in the rocks at the top of Sandia Crest that towers a mile above Albuquerque and forms the eastern boundary of the city that sits on high desert.

This might be exciting to the Biblical literalists as evidence of Noah's flood that is not shaken by the scientific theories.

The paleontologists/geologists know that our high desert was once shallow seas that became rain forest when geological/seismic forces pushed the land up out of the water and created the relatively young Sandia Mountains on which those sea fossils were found.

And like in the Sahara, the climate changed, the rains stopped, the rain forests died out, and the high desert became a reality.

All this we know from the paleontology record.

But the exact dating of all those events is at best an educated guess within tens of millions of years. As I said, a very inexact science.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is precisely what many Creationists do when critiquing science when they use science to support their beliefs.

I don't support my beliefs with science though, and I take about as much flack.

If I don't support what I believe with science, I get told to go live in a cave, go live on my own island, don't go to the doctor, stop using my computer, etc.

If someone does support what they believe with science ... well ... just read what they say about Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, DI, ICR, and others.

In addition, they throw in the "You're not qualified to speak on this subject" argument.

We have a climatologist here that has spoken on SN1987A; but let me quote from the footnotes of the Defender's Study Bible about Jacob's cattle and I get, "Henry Morris was a hydraulics engineer and not qualified to speak on genetics."

Let me quote from the Scofield Reference Bible, and I'll eventually hear, "C.I. Scofield was just a lawyer and not qualified to speak on the Flood."

Yet, people who haven't even been to college here and can't make a single post without using proper grammar and punctuation can tell me I should be running my theology through the scientific method.

I will admit though ... sometimes I underestimate people.

Years ago here, I challenged a college professor of literature to give me the three types of Hebrew poetry, and to my complete surprise, he did just that.

And in a thread I started, I reversed roles and talked like an atheistic evolutionist, while another talked like a born-again creationist, and I gave up before he did.

So I'll admit, I do underestimate people at times.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It isn't sarcasm. It's metaphor.

Meant to deliver sarcasm. You have not only treated my position with sarcasm but with contempt.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't support my beliefs with science though, and I take about as much flack.

If I don't support what I believe with science, I get told to go live in a cave, go live on my own island, don't go to the doctor, stop using my computer, etc.

If someone does support what they believe with science ... well ... just read what they say about Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, DI, ICR, and others.

In addition, they throw in the "You're not qualified to speak on this subject" argument.

We have a climatologist here that has spoken on SN1987A; but let me quote from the footnotes of the Defender's Study Bible about Jacob's cattle and I get, "Henry Morris was a hydraulics engineer and not qualified to speak on genetics."

Let me quote from the Scofield Reference Bible, and I'll eventually hear, "C.I. Scofield was just a lawyer and not qualified to speak on the Flood."

Yet, people who haven't even been to college here and can't make a single post without using proper grammar and punctuation can tell me I should be running my theology through the scientific method.

I will admit though ... sometimes I underestimate people.

Years ago here, I challenged a college professor of literature to give me the three types of Hebrew poetry, and to my complete surprise, he did just that.

And in a thread I started, I reversed roles and talked like an atheistic evolutionist, while another talked like a born-again creationist, and I gave up before he did.

So I'll admit, I do underestimate people at times.

What puzzles me is that science hasn't yet concluded that the whole thing is.......magic (with laws that hold everything together....for now).

 

[Foxfyre]

Unrelenting ad hominem attacks and sarcasm are the 'mo' of many atheists that contend with creationists here.

Well, in all fairness, I wouldn't say that being 'annoyed' is ad hominem or sarcasm. I just don't see any point in being annoyed when we are kicking around possibilities about how or why this or that happened.

And. . .in fairness to the member I was discussing this with. . .I admit to being a bit annoyed when somebody informs me that I don't know my Bible or understand the Christian faith, etc. etc. etc. because I don't agree with that person. And I get a bit annoyed when somebody presume to chastise the Creationist who, for whatever reason, takes a passage literally that most do not.

Our God is an awesome God and he offers a very big tent and I think there is room for differences of opinion within it.