Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[AV1611VET]

The amazing part of this simple example is that King Solomon was able to say this "without" the understanding of hydrologic cycle.

Juvenissun, do you have a Defender's Study Bible?

 

[Chalnoth]

Again, do not think ancient people are ignorant. They knew their living environment better than you know your backyard.

Except they were ignorant. At least one of the authors of the book of Kings did not know the nature of pi. Other authors of the Old Testament did not appear to be aware that the Earth was a sphere.

So, as I said before, it is possible that these people had some vague notion of the hydrological cycle just due to their own experience. But they also were wrong on a great many other things, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were mistaken here as well.

The point is that King Solomon probably did not have any idea about the hydrologic cycle. I wonder when did people start to actually suspect the existence of this cyclic process. I guess it was probably later than A.D.1000, or even A.D.500. It isn't easy. It takes the understanding on the origin of cloud and rain. Many key links in this cycle are invisible features.

Which, since they didn't mention rain at all, is why I suspect they were talking about a literal flow from sea to sea.

The amazing part of this simple example is that King Solomon was able to say this "without" the understanding of hydrologic cycle.

If the author talked about rain, you might have a leg to stand on.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least one of the authors of the book of Kings did not know the nature of pi.

LOL --- this PRATT always gives me a chuckle.

Isn't the value of Pi that number that they readjusted about 10 times before someone got it right?

And yes, I realize the value of ≠ the nature of, but then you can't show me that Pi was even being considered in that passage.

I'm liable to make the same statement, myself, if I were to describe a birdbath to someone.

 

[Chalnoth]

LOL --- this PRATT always gives me a chuckle.

Isn't the value of Pi that number that they readjusted about 10 times before someone got it right?

And yes, I realize the value of ≠ the nature of, but then you can't show me that Pi was even being considered in that passage.

I'm liable to make the same statement, myself, if I were to describe a birdbath to someone.

Why would you say it's a circle, and also give both the circumference and diameter? One or the other is sufficient. It doesn't help that they gave both, and got the answer wrong.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Ecclesiastes 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

actually a fairly good observation. rivers always flow into the sea but the sea doesnt fill. i would leave it at good observation though. it doesnt really describe any hydrologic process. if the bible were to demonstrate knowledge of the hydrologic cycle, the flood waters would have been an excellent opportunity and their origin and subsequent recession arent feasibly explained.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you see modern scientific understanding in this verse? (in case you don't, here is the explicit term: hydrological cycle)

it doesnt really describe any hydrologic process.

That's always you guys' trump card, isn't it? It doesn't describe science in minute detail.

Like expecting to build a computer from Bill Gate's diary.

ETA: Oh, and I highlighted the term change that you guys are so good at doing.

 

[Washington]

LOL --- this PRATT always gives me a chuckle.

Hmmm, Seems it wasn't that long ago (last January) that you lost your π challenge. Although, as usual, you did tap dance around all the relevant points without addressing them. See HERE.
So although you may like to believe it's a PRATT, it just isn't so. Kings simply got it wrong. For those who wish to see the explanation I invite you to click on the "HERE" above.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That's always you guys' trump card, isn't it? It doesn't describe science in minute detail.

You actually have a valid point. I personally don't care if the Bible got a fact or two right or that it might, just by some extremely liberal reading of a passage be onto a "deeper truth". My world view as an atheist isn't destroyed.

Why? Because the Bible was written by humans. And humans actually can view things and record them.

I think the whole reason that literalists and inerrantists bring out the "hardcore" hyper-detailed-demanding stuff is because they imbue so much more to the Bible than the collected wisdom of humans accreted over hundreds and hundreds of years.

Basically if someone were to come on here and espouse a moderate Bible as guide rather than Bible as "miracle book of miraculous origin containing nothing but absolute perfected truth" then most on here would have a tough time debating against that.

(That's why its fun to debate with Literalists and Inerrantists....they set the goal so far out that even they can't make the point much of the time!)

 

[MoonLancer]

ETA: Oh, and I highlighted the term change that you guys are so good at doing.

The hydrological cycle IS a process.. or diden't you know that?

IF the bible was written by god it would contain explicit detail and correctness of a god, rather then just the right amount of detail as to be surmised by someone of that time.

 

[AV1611VET]

The hydrological cycle IS a processes.. or diden't you know that?

The Hydrological Cycle --- in my opinion --- is the term used for all the Hydrological Processes combined.

Hydrological Process + Hydrological Process = Hydrological Cycle

Again --- in my opinion.

 

[MoonLancer]

The Hydrological Cycle --- in my opinion --- is the term used for all the Hydrological Processes combined.

Hydrological Process + Hydrological Process = Hydrological Cycle

Again --- in my opinion.

You could be right, I am not entirely sure. Process is a very broad term. I don't think theirs any shenanigans involved by replacing cycle with process

 

[Chalnoth]

actually a fairly good observation. rivers always flow into the sea but the sea doesnt fill. i would leave it at good observation though. it doesnt really describe any hydrologic process.

Right, which makes me wonder what mechanism they thought was going on here. It would have been impressive (though not unbelievable) if they actually thought that the water from the sea evaporated and formed clouds. But they didn't demonstrate this. The author just showed a vague notion that he was aware that the sea didn't fill up, and thus the water must go back to the river somehow.

if the bible were to demonstrate knowledge of the hydrologic cycle, the flood waters would have been an excellent opportunity and their origin and subsequent recession arent feasibly explained.

But this is precisely the point: the Bible has opportunities all over the place to dazzle us all with its amazing insights into the nature of reality. It fails again and again to do so, because it is a bronze-age text written by an ignorant desert tribe.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, do you have a Defender's Study Bible?

No. I don't. But since you mentioned it, I may pay an attention to it.

 

[juvenissun]

Except they were ignorant. At least one of the authors of the book of Kings did not know the nature of pi. Other authors of the Old Testament did not appear to be aware that the Earth was a sphere.

So, as I said before, it is possible that these people had some vague notion of the hydrological cycle just due to their own experience. But they also were wrong on a great many other things, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were mistaken here as well.


Which, since they didn't mention rain at all, is why I suspect they were talking about a literal flow from sea to sea.


If the author talked about rain, you might have a leg to stand on.

You are wrong again. Since the verse does not mention rain, it is even more impressive on what it says.

If you ever visit the land of Judea, you would understand that rain in an obvious, but is NOT the most impressive source of water for rivers. Judea is in a semi-arid climate, rain is rare in the summer. So, if one traced a river up to the hill top, one would see the running water gradually changes to merely a wetted ground at the up slope. Most of the river water is, in fact, supplied by the groundwater.

So during the dry season, here is what they can see:

River water flows into the sea.
River water "appeared" near the hill top.

That is it.

 

[Chalnoth]

You are wrong again. Since the verse does not mention rain, it is even more impressive on what it says.

If you ever visit the land of Judea, you would understand that rain in an obvious, but is NOT the most impressive source of water for rivers. Judea is in a semi-arid climate, rain is rare in the summer. So, if one traced a river up to the hill top, one would see the running water gradually changes to merely a wetted ground at the up slope. Most of the river water is, in fact, supplied by the groundwater.

So during the dry season, here is what they can see:

River water flows into the sea.
River water "appeared" near the hill top.

That is it.

More impressive? How is not mentioning a process ever more impressive than mentioning one? It's much better, after all, to be partially right than to not even try.

If this is your argument, then you'd have a leg to stand on if you could show that they had an understanding of ground water. But it doesn't really matter what the actual causes were, however, because no process whatsoever is mentioned. All that is mentioned is a simple (and pretty good) observation: the sea doesn't fill. That's an observation that was not out of bounds for the people of the time to have made, and neither is the obvious conclusion that the water must go back. What is not clear, however, is that they had even a ghost of an inkling as to how that occurs.

Anyway, as I mentioned here is yet another place in the Bible where there was an opportunity, if a god had any hand in writing it whatsoever, to dazzle people with his amazing insight into the nature of reality. This did not happen.

 

[juvenissun]

[BIBLE]Ecclesiastes 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.[/BIBLE]

actually a fairly good observation. rivers always flow into the sea but the sea doesnt fill. i would leave it at good observation though. it doesnt really describe any hydrologic process. if the bible were to demonstrate knowledge of the hydrologic cycle, the flood waters would have been an excellent opportunity and their origin and subsequent recession arent feasibly explained.

It seems you are trying to ignore the three highlighted key words. What Solomon said there is MORE than just observation.

Hey, I am simply giving your ONE simplest example. As I said, there are many better examples. I can see you (and Chalnoth) are not willing to admit even this one as a valid example of correct science information given by the Bible. If so, that is it. It is probably no use to talk to you on other examples. However, if you do not let this one pass, then all your other arguments are simply meaningless gibberishes.

 

[Chalnoth]

The mere existence of an accurate observation in the Bible is not interesting in the least. Humans are, after all, capable of observing the world around them. If you want to try to use "scientific information" in the Bible to demonstrate divine authorship, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than simply point out that the authors on the Bible were, on occasion, decent observers of the world around them who could use some basic logic. Furthermore, the fact that it's so often incredibly wrong speaks pretty strongly against the idea that there was even an inkling of divine authorship here.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I don't. But since you mentioned it, I may pay an attention to it.

I'll bet you'd love one --- the notes are from the late Dr. Henry M. Morris, and one of his apendices is a page and a half of science mentioned in the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

I'll bet you'd love one --- the notes are from the late Dr. Henry M. Morris, and one of his apendices is a page and a half of science mentioned in the Bible.

I am collecting this category of information. I already have a significant bunch. But I want to find more and more of it. Thanks for the info.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am collecting this category of information. I already have a significant bunch. But I want to find more and more of it. Thanks for the info.

If I have some time later on, I'll post some.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!