The Flood (2)

[AV1611VET]

Oh, we get it.

I very, very seriously doubt that --- very seriously.

 

[FishFace]

I didn't say "layers."

Are you telling me now that there are parts of the earth that have never been under flood water at one time or another?

Please cite one, as I understand that even Kansas has been under a flood at one time.

Most recent lava flows have never been underwater. (Except for rain...)
E.g. the last Krafla eruption happened this century, and it sure hasn't been flooded since.

 

[FishFace]

What you are saying is that there are certainly "flood" layers found pretty much everywhere. It is simply your contention that these occur at different layers in different places. However, this may simply be the result of different sorts of things occurring in different locations (at the same time), as the FLOOD started, proceeded, progressed and ended, and as the globe settled down. Clearly, if a volcano erupted at the start of the FLOOD over here and a meteor hit over there and the crust of the earth thrusted way over there, one will see different layerings. Prove that reasoning false.

Well, nobody can prove that wrong, since you didn't really say anything.

Which layers are flood layers? If you make a falsifiable claim, it will be falsified.

 

[FishFace]

The problem, Tim, is that we're dealing with people who do not have a teachable spirit. Rather than wanting to learn how to interpret the Bible correctly for themselves, they want each and every verse annotated and spoonfed to them to their satisfaction.

Nope, we just contend we already know how to interpret the Bible correctly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, we just contend we already know how to interpret the Bible correctly.

I would too if I were you.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

They can be used as evidence if there's something to back the up, sure.

Sorry, what?

My point was that the Gospels tell us that Jesus was very famous, even before he was born, yet you tell us that he wasn't all that famous, at least not until sometime after his death.

Where do the Gospels say Jesus was famous before he was born? The only reason King Herod knew is the Magi, and the only reason the Shepherds knew were the Angels. I have absolutely no idea where you got that from. Didn't you read what I just wrote? Herod wanted to Kill him, because he was being celebrated as the king of Israel by the Magi, and they held significant political power in Persia. Herod was loyal to Rome (and loved to suck uup to the emperor I might add). Now do you get it? It was not because Jesus was 'famous' in any way.

Why ignore the miracles? They weren't all post-humous, y'know. Wasn't anyone interested at this bloke turning water to wine, etc?

I was simply saying there is no point in addressing the miracles along with the existence of the person. Your focus on the miracles has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually existed. That is a Red Herring. Jesus existing is not a 'surprise' to anyone. Eyewitness accounts are plenty enough reason to know that someone existed. Nice try.

I agree that minor discrepancies are to be expected in a geniune historical document, but I disagree that these were minor. In one account it was nighttime, and in the rest it was morning. And besides, wouldn't the gospel writers have corresponded with each other?

It said "it was still dark" implying that it was becoming light. Mornings are generally dark, the sun does not rise immediately at 5 am.

Correspondence is possible, but I doubt it. They didn't all write at the same time, they tended to write to different people, and sometimes emphasizing different themes, and with different methods of writing. Its probable that they may have known about the others, (leastwise some of them) but I don't think they necessarily corresponded, or read each others accounts. Although from the impression I get from Luke is that there were a number more Gospels that we still don't have.

 

[Split Rock]

Isn't that what I said you guys say?

No, AVET... you are not getting it. Marine systems are underwater, but they are not flooded. Sediments showing the preservation of marine life (i.e. intact marine ecosystems) are not evidence of either local or global flooding. Do you understand the difference between strata that show flooding vs. strata that show marine ecosystems?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, AVET... you are not getting it. Marine systems are underwater, but they are not flooded. Sediments showing the preservation of marine life (i.e. intact marine ecosystems) are not evidence of either local or global flooding. Do you understand the difference between strata that show flooding vs. strata that show marine ecosystems?

I'm not concerned with what is below the surface, I'm concerned with what's above the surface.

 

[Split Rock]

I'll tell you what I understand, Baggins. I understand that you guys love to deny a global flood occurred, then spend the rest of your time explaining every square mile of the earth in terms of local floods. That's sad.

You do realize that strata showing fossilized marine ecosystems are not the same as those showing flooding... right? For example, you mentioned Kansas being underwater at one time.. this is correct, as a large inland sea covered much of the center of the U.S. However, the geological column here shows marine life, including intact ecosystems, not evidence of massive flooding. Therefore, to answer your question, there are plenty of regions that were underwater at one time, but were never under "a flood."

Isn't that what I said you guys say?

No, AVET... you are not getting it. Marine systems are underwater, but they are not flooded. Sediments showing the preservation of marine life (i.e. intact marine ecosystems) are not evidence of either local or global flooding. Do you understand the difference between strata that show flooding vs. strata that show marine ecosystems?

I'm not concerned with what is below the surface, I'm concerned with what's above the surface.

I was just trying to explain that your first statement about all parts of the earth being under a flood (at some time) is wrong because you are assuming that a marine sediment is the same as a flood sediment. If you don't care about such things, why do you post about them?

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, nobody can prove that wrong, since you didn't really say anything.

Which layers are flood layers? If you make a falsifiable claim, it will be falsified.

Well, mutiple layers are most likely connected to the FLOOD. There are likely asteroid strike layers, volcanic erruption layers, earthquake layers, mud flow layers, submersion layers, more volcanic layes, more asteroid layers, crust shifting layers, etc... There is not going to be one single "FLOOD" layer. Far too much took place for that to be the case.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, mutiple layers are most likely connected to the FLOOD. There are likely asteroid strike layers, volcanic erruption layers, earthquake layers, mud flow layers, submersion layers, more volcanic layes, more asteroid layers, crust shifting layers, etc... There is not going to be one single "FLOOD" layer. Far too much took place for that to be the case.

Where do you get the idea that there were asteroid impacts, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions during the flood? My KJV Bible doesn't mention them.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Global floods are like onions... they have layers.

 

[Contracelsus]

I'm not concerned with what is below the surface, I'm concerned with what's above the surface.

That sounds like that might be your problem!

Try looking deeper.

 

[Contracelsus]

Where do you get the idea that there were asteroid impacts, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions during the flood? My KJV Bible doesn't mention them.

It does amaze me that some Literalists who so desperately want to keep the Flood of Noah in the face of the overwhelming lack of geologic evidence for it will resort to mashing up all the geology that they've ever heard on a disaster flick or news reports and just push them all into the explanation.

Geology can be used, then, like the Droogs in "A Clockwork Orange" to completely violate and destroy geology!

It's win win!

 

[AV1611VET]

I was just trying to explain that your first statement about all parts of the earth being under a flood (at some time) is wrong because you are assuming that a marine sediment is the same as a flood sediment. If you don't care about such things, why do you post about them?

I'm assuming what???

 

[Split Rock]

I'm assuming what???

You gave the example of Kansas being under "a flood." The evidence actually shows it was covered by an inland sea, and that evidence is marine strata. You therefore seem to be implying there is no difference between marine and flood strata.

This Wikipedia article discusses the marine life fossils found in this strata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

here are some shark teeth from Kansas dated to the Cretaceous Period:
http://www.buriedtreasurefossils.com/Kansas Shark Teeth Catalog.htm

 

[AV1611VET]

It does amaze me that some Literalists who so desperately want to keep the Flood of Noah in the face of the overwhelming lack of geologic evidence for it will resort to mashing up all the geology that they've ever heard on a disaster flick or news reports and just push them all into the explanation.

Geology can be used, then, like the Droogs in "A Clockwork Orange" to completely violate and destroy geology!

It's win win!

Fair enough --- then "God did it." Is that acceptable now?

To be honest, I just wish all Christians on here would answer you guys with either:

• God did it.
• Fall did it.
• Flood did it.

and be done with it.

Then sites like that fsbvd (or whatever it isn't) would be out of business.

 

[AV1611VET]

You gave the example of Kansas being under "a flood." The evidence actually shows it was covered by an inland sea, and that evidence is marine strata. You therefore seem to be implying there is no difference between marine and flood strata.

Fine --- to clear all confusion: God did it.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Geology can be used, then, like the Droogs in "A Clockwork Onion" to completely violate and destroy geology!

Fixed.

 

[Contracelsus]

Fair enough --- then "God did it." Is that acceptable now?

To be honest, I just wish all Christians on here would answer you guys with either:

• God did it.
• Fall did it.
• Flood did it.

and be done with it.

Then sites like that fsbvd (or whatever it isn't) would be out of business.

You're probably right. If someone so dislikes certain sciences that they simply don't believe in it, then they should not try to molest that science into saying what it doesn't say.

It doesn't work out well for the science and it doesn't work out well for the religion that is trying to subvert the science.

Frankly I've never actually understood why some people find science to be so damaging to their religion, especially something as friendly as geology.

Even those who want to totally overturn all of geology to get the Flood of Noah accepted as scientific end up trying to use geology (actually misusing it in most cases) to do that and they end up getting themselves into an area they don't understand.

Oh well.