The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

robinph

So back to these vegetation mats then...

J C

robinph wrote: »

So back to these vegetation mats then...

Here is a photo of tree mats on spirit lake following a relatively minor volcanic explosion in 1980. It was minor in comparison with the worldwide scale of the devasataion caused by global tectonic forces in Noah's Flood.

robinph

That's just a bunch of flotsam and dead trees. Where are the live trees the large herbivores will be munching on?

J C

robinph wrote: »

That's just a bunch of flotsam and dead trees. Where are the live trees the large herbivores will be munching on?

I never said that large herbivores would munch on dead trees ... in the immediate aftermath of the Flood they would have survived on vegetation regrowth, which can occur rapidly ... here is a series of photos illustrating how rapidly grasses recolonise after a wildfire has wiped out all vegetation:-



Here is another image from Mount St Helens showing a flower meadow that grew up in the immediate aftermath of the explosion that wiped out all plant life on the side of the mountain.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

It is not only disingenuous it is total heresy to claim that any part of the Bible is untrue.
If some of Bible is untrue, we cannot trust anything in it including the divinity of Jesus Christ.

There is nothing illogical about anything in the Bible ... and Christians, like myself don't take a literal reading of the Bible ... we take a plain reading of the bible ... reading it as poetry, where poetry is obviously used, as a parable, where a parable is obviously meant, as allegory, where allegory is obviously meant and as literal history or literal commands, where this is obviously meant, as well.

... and therby they effectively undermine the very basis of Christianity that God literally Created everything in Heaven and Earth ... that there was a literal Adam and Eve who fell and introduced sin and death and a literal Jesus Christ (or second Adam) who was God incarnated who came to atone for all sin.

So the old testament is true?

robinph

Define "rapidly". What about the herbivores who don't eat flowers?
And what about the lack of anyone else on the planet having a boat and knowing how to catch fish?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So the old testament is true?

Yes, amongst other things, its a 'warts and all' truthful account of the Israelites encounters with God ... and other people in their immediate viscinity.

Some of it doesn't make pleasant reading ... but then again, neither does our modern news reports of man's inhumanity to their fellow man, either.:)

Achasanai

J C wrote: »

I have never 'gone silent' when any Creation Science (or Biblical) principle or idea was challenged.
I did note that other Christians who have a 'pick and mix' attitude, go rapidly silent, never to be heard of again, in many cases, when their various heresies are challenged.

There were a fair few questions a while back that went unanswered.

J C wrote: »

I never said that large herbivores would munch on dead trees ... in the immediate aftermath of the Flood they would have survived on vegetation regrowth, which can occur rapidly ...

You did say that the carnivores would have eaten the carrion left behind by the flood. When questioned on the viability of eating rotting flesh, you suggested that they were frozen, due to a 'nuclear winter' scenario, but never answered how the carrion was frozen but the grasses were germinating at a fairly rapid rate. You mentioned very localised climate change but (probably wisely) never really elaborated on this.

As for grass feeding the entire herbivore population of the ark, I'm not sure this is realistic (as you said before: do the math on an elephant that would require - quick Google here - 600 pounds of food per day. How long would grass take to germinate in a scenario that has frozen all the carcasses of the dead from before the flood? And that's just the elephants, do we have to include dinosaurs in this as well (maybe they were all wipe out in the flood?)

I'm assuming these animals also needed to be fed on board as well? How long was Noah afloat? Even just keeping the two elephants happy and well-fed, how many pounds of vegetation would have been needed for that?

Did animals who feed on a very specific foodstuff nowadays (koala bears, for example) eat differently back then? How were bees and other pollinators kept fed both on board and once on land (how long does it take for a plant to produce a flower?)

Achasanai

J C wrote: »

There is nothing illogical about anything in the Bible ... and Christians, like myself don't take a literal reading of the Bible ... we take a plain reading of the bible ... reading it as poetry, where poetry is obviously used, as a parable, where a parable is obviously meant, as allegory, where allegory is obviously meant and as literal history or literal commands, where this is obviously meant, as well.

I do agree to an extent with this, however.The problem is that you could also include 'creation myths' as a genre, which most of the histories in the Bible are.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Good man, JC, you're playing a blinder, and the Lord is with you.

J C

Achasanai wrote: »

There were a fair few questions a while back that went unanswered.



You did say that the carnivores would have eaten the carrion left behind by the flood. When questioned on the viability of eating rotting flesh, you suggested that they were frozen, due to a 'nuclear winter' scenario, but never answered how the carrion was frozen but the grasses were germinating at a fairly rapid rate. You mentioned very localised climate change but (probably wisely) never really elaborated on this.

As for grass feeding the entire herbivore population of the ark, I'm not sure this is realistic (as you said before: do the math on an elephant that would require - quick Google here - 600 pounds of food per day. How long would grass take to germinate in a scenario that has frozen all the carcasses of the dead from before the flood? And that's just the elephants, do we have to include dinosaurs in this as well (maybe they were all wipe out in the flood?)

I'm assuming these animals also needed to be fed on board as well? How long was Noah afloat? Even just keeping the two elephants happy and well-fed, how many pounds of vegetation would have been needed for that?

Did animals who feed on a very specific foodstuff nowadays (koala bears, for example) eat differently back then? How were bees and other pollinators kept fed both on board and once on land (how long does it take for a plant to produce a flower?)

It is likely that juvenile animals were on-board the ark ... and this would dramatically reduce the feed requirements both on the Ark and in the immediate aftermath of the Flood.

Grasses germinate and grow in a matter of days.
Quote:-
"In a week, grass may grow 2-6 inches (depending on temperature, humidity, time of year, etc.). So do the math - that works out to about a 1/25 of an inch/hour."

It is also possible that Noah took samples of critical crop seeds on-board the Ark and sowed them as soon as the water receded locally near the Ark ... to kick-start the process.

Leroy42

Its even possible! That's not a belief, thats just making up stuff. It is entirely possible that God placed them all in a hibernation state, or removed the need to eat or defecate. Anything is possible, including that it never happened.

Of course it all begs the question of why? Why save only 2 of each animal when clearly you cannot attribute sin to them. What was the purpose of wiping out so many animals?

And it strikes me that Noah is entirely redundant in all of this. Why did an all powerful god, maker of everything, rely on this guy and his family to carry this off when we know that free will could have ruined the plan at any stage. Why bother with the middle man?

Simply wipe out everything and start from scratch, back to Adam and Eve. No, he goes to all the trouble of talking and old man into building a boat (which according to JC) of which he hadn't a clue.
Then hope that he could persuade the rest of his family, without letting them actually know what was planned.
Then wait while Noah went about obtaining all the materials and building the boat - during which time one can only assume the dreadful sin that lead to gods rage continued unabated but he was happy to wait.
Then hope that none of those horrible sinners tried to attack the boat or steal the supplies. One can assume that Noah needed plentiful supplies prior to setting off which no doubt would have raised suspicions, jealously and temptation to steal.
Then, even if all that went off without a hitch, he had to hope that all of Noahs offspring would remain sin free, as otherwise the whole endeavour seems a tad pointless. All that death and destruction, god taking direct action in contravention of his on free will policy, and for what?
To end up as bad as ever, we are all still sinners, evil still exists. At best he put the clock back a bit.

Bob_Marley

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its even possible! That's not a belief, thats just making up stuff. It is entirely possible that God placed them all in a hibernation state, or removed the need to eat or defecate. Anything is possible, including that it never happened.

Of course it all begs the question of why? Why save only 2 of each animal when clearly you cannot attribute sin to them. What was the purpose of wiping out so many animals?

And it strikes me that Noah is entirely redundant in all of this. Why did an all powerful god, maker of everything, rely on this guy and his family to carry this off when we know that free will could have ruined the plan at any stage. Why bother with the middle man?

Simply wipe out everything and start from scratch, back to Adam and Eve. No, he goes to all the trouble of talking and old man into building a boat (which according to JC) of which he hadn't a clue.
Then hope that he could persuade the rest of his family, without letting them actually know what was planned.
Then wait while Noah went about obtaining all the materials and building the boat - during which time one can only assume the dreadful sin that lead to gods rage continued unabated but he was happy to wait.
Then hope that none of those horrible sinners tried to attack the boat or steal the supplies. One can assume that Noah needed plentiful supplies prior to setting off which no doubt would have raised suspicions, jealously and temptation to steal.
Then, even if all that went off without a hitch, he had to hope that all of Noahs offspring would remain sin free, as otherwise the whole endeavour seems a tad pointless. All that death and destruction, god taking direct action in contravention of his on free will policy, and for what?
To end up as bad as ever, we are all still sinners, evil still exists. At best he put the clock back a bit.

- what a made up mess of understanding, I guess that's what happens when you take literary devices about spirituality literally.

Leroy42

I'll take that as you having no answers to the points raised.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

It is likely that juvenile animals were on-board the ark ... and this would dramatically reduce the feed requirements both on the Ark and in the immediate aftermath of the Flood.

Grasses germinate and grow in a matter of days.
Quote:-
"In a week, grass may grow 2-6 inches (depending on temperature, humidity, time of year, etc.). So do the math - that works out to about a 1/25 of an inch/hour."

It is also possible that Noah took samples of critical crop seeds on-board the Ark and sowed them as soon as the water receded locally near the Ark ... to kick-start the process.

These words along with "it is thought"


If an atheist uses these words to try to explain evolution or the big bang theory you shoot them down because they use these words.

Why is it ok for you to uae them in an attempt to explain the unexplainable?

robinph

Bob_Marley wrote: »

- what a made up mess of understanding, I guess that's what happens when you take literary devices about spirituality literally.

You are directing your criticism of the litteral interpretation in the wrong direction. The poster JC determined that it is a literally true story from the bible. That then sets up the questions that need answering that Leroy42 asked.

J C

Bob_Marley wrote: »

- what a made up mess of understanding, I guess that's what happens when you take literary devices about spirituality literally.

Noah's Flood is not a literary device in the Bible ... its a clear historical account confirmed by Jesus Christ Himself.

Matthew 24:37-39 King James Version (KJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

... and there is ample physical geological evidence all over the world that a world-wide water-based cataclysm occurred and wiped out billions of plants and animals.

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its even possible! That's not a belief, thats just making up stuff. It is entirely possible that God placed them all in a hibernation state, or removed the need to eat or defecate. Anything is possible, including that it never happened.

Of course it all begs the question of why? Why save only 2 of each animal when clearly you cannot attribute sin to them. What was the purpose of wiping out so many animals?

And it strikes me that Noah is entirely redundant in all of this. Why did an all powerful god, maker of everything, rely on this guy and his family to carry this off when we know that free will could have ruined the plan at any stage. Why bother with the middle man?

Simply wipe out everything and start from scratch, back to Adam and Eve. No, he goes to all the trouble of talking and old man into building a boat (which according to JC) of which he hadn't a clue.
Then hope that he could persuade the rest of his family, without letting them actually know what was planned.
Then wait while Noah went about obtaining all the materials and building the boat - during which time one can only assume the dreadful sin that lead to gods rage continued unabated but he was happy to wait.
Then hope that none of those horrible sinners tried to attack the boat or steal the supplies. One can assume that Noah needed plentiful supplies prior to setting off which no doubt would have raised suspicions, jealously and temptation to steal.
Then, even if all that went off without a hitch, he had to hope that all of Noahs offspring would remain sin free, as otherwise the whole endeavour seems a tad pointless. All that death and destruction, god taking direct action in contravention of his on free will policy, and for what?
To end up as bad as ever, we are all still sinners, evil still exists. At best he put the clock back a bit.

You are trying to complicate a simple thing ... God wiped out all land-based life in a worldwide Flood ... and we see the evidence for this in the billions of fossilised dead things found in sedimentary rock layers that were clearly laid down by water processes all over the Earth.
God saved a representative sample of all animal kinds aboard an ark in co-operation with the only righteous family that was left on Earth at the time.

The Human genetic 'bottleneck' that resulted form the deaths of 99.9999% of the popoulation at the time has also been confirmed by conventional science.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/genetic-bottleneck-almost-killed-humans-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

robinph

How come Noahs daughters in law were able to be saved and become righteous, but nobody else on the planet was? If they were save able then why not their brothers and sisters? What about the rest of the extended family?

Achasanai

J C wrote: »

It is likely that juvenile animals were on-board the ark ... and this would dramatically reduce the feed requirements both on the Ark and in the immediate aftermath of the Flood.

Ah, juvenile animals. Of course. Fair enough, how much food would you need for multiple (I'm talking all the larger herbivores nowadays, as well as all those that existed in the past - don't forget the carnivores now!) for the duration of the flood, as well as keeping in mind that juvenile animals grow at a fairly substantial rate.

J C wrote: »

Grasses germinate and grow in a matter of days.
Quote:-
"In a week, grass may grow 2-6 inches (depending on temperature, humidity, time of year, etc.). So do the math - that works out to about a 1/25 of an inch/hour."

You're forgetting that you suggested that the carnivores - in order to not have them feed off all the living food from the ark - ate the frozen carcasses of the animals killed during the flood. Explaining it further, you said something about a nuclear winter scenario which induced a period along the lines of an ice age. Does grass grow that fast during an ice age?

Actually, thinking back now, the idea that the carnivores ate frozen carcasses doesn't make much sense, as surely they would thaw and thus rot? They'd eventually have to quite quickly resort to feeding off the Ark animals, which leads to another problem, in that we still have herbivores in existence. I'd be interested to hear your explanation of that one.

J C wrote: »

... and there is ample physical geological evidence all over the world that a world-wide water-based cataclysm occurred and wiped out billions of plants and animals.

Water from all those underwater reservoirs, right?

And nothing on animals that eat specific foodstuffs that would not have been available in sufficient quantities both on the Ark and in the immediate aftermath.

robinph

J C wrote: »

The Human genetic 'bottleneck' that resulted form the deaths of 99.9999% of the popoulation at the time has also been confirmed by conventional science.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/genetic-bottleneck-almost-killed-humans-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

Did you just ignore the bit about when that was?

J C

robinph wrote: »

How come Noahs daughters in law were able to be saved and become righteous, but nobody else on the planet was? If they were save able then why not their brothers and sisters? What about the rest of the extended family?

Everybody except Noah and his immediate family were irredeemably evil ... the bible describes it as follows:-

Genesis 6:5-7 King James Version (KJV)
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Professor Moriarty

I've asked when the continents split up because of the marsupials. No answer.
I've asked when the Flood was. No answer.
So....how long did the Flood last for?

J C

robinph wrote: »

Did you just ignore the bit about when that was?

70,000 Evolutionist years ... bears no relationship to actual years ... because of the Evolutionist need for deep time ... to have any credibility for their unfounded idea that pondkind spontaneously evolved into mankind.

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've asked when the continents split up because of the marsupials. No answer.

The continents were formed during the Flood.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've asked when the Flood was. No answer.

... a few thousand years ago ... the fossils formed then still have blood within them.
Quote:-
"Dr Maidment said. “Although remnants of soft tissues have previously been discovered in rare, exceptionally preserved fossils, what is particularly exciting about our study is that we have discovered structures reminiscent of blood cells and collagen fibres in scrappy, poorly preserved fossils. This suggests that this sort of soft tissue preservation might be widespread in fossils.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-discover-red-blood-and-protein-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-fossils-10308549.html

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So....how long did the Flood last for?

About a year ... with the peak activity lasting 40 days.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

The continents were formed during the Flood.

... a few thousand years ago ... the fossils formed then still have blood within them.
Quote:-
"Dr Maidment said. “Although remnants of soft tissues have previously been discovered in rare, exceptionally preserved fossils, what is particularly exciting about our study is that we have discovered structures reminiscent of blood cells and collagen fibres in scrappy, poorly preserved fossils. This suggests that this sort of soft tissue preservation might be widespread in fossils.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-discover-red-blood-and-protein-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-fossils-10308549.html

About a year ... with the peak activity lasting 40 days.

So the Flood was a "few thousand years ago". Would 'few' fall within the range of 2-10k?

robinph

J C wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

How come Noahs daughters in law were able to be saved and become righteous, but nobody else on the planet was? If they were save able then why not their brothers and sisters? What about the rest of the extended family?

Everybody except Noah and his immediate family were irredeemably evil ... the bible describes it as follows:-

Genesis 6:5-7 King James Version (KJV)
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

So what about the daughters in law then, and his wife. How did they come to be eligible for saving. They were presumably descended from other people who were killed in the flood for being evil. If the kids of thoy evil people could be saved then why not anyone elses children?

J C

robinph wrote: »

So what about the daughters in law then, and his wife. How did they come to be eligible for saving. They were presumably descended from other people who were killed in the flood for being evil. If the kids of thoy evil people could be saved then why not anyone elses children?

It seems that everyone else except Noah, his sons and their wives had become irrredeemably evil.
That's just the way it was.
Terrible, to be sure.
There was nothing like it since ... but we are told that this scale of evil will return, when the Christian Church is removed and shortly before the second coming of Jesus Christ, to judge the damned.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

It seems that everyone else except Noah, his sons and their wives had become irrredeemably evil.
That's just the way it was.
Terrible, to be sure.
There was nothing like it since ... but we are told that this scale of evil will return, when the Christian Church is removed and shortly before the second coming of Jesus Christ, to judge the damned.

And there you go again with the supposition.

Grand when you use it but lo and behold if an atheist ever tries to use phrases like that :rolleyes:

robinph

Achasanai wrote: »

Actually, thinking back now, the idea that the carnivores ate frozen carcasses doesn't make much sense, as surely they would thaw and thus rot? They'd eventually have to quite quickly resort to feeding off the Ark animals, which leads to another problem, in that we still have herbivores in existence. I'd be interested to hear your explanation of that one.

I'm sure that during a previous session around the merry-go-round of the flood explanation a few hundred pages ago he said that all the carnivorous animals were herbivores until after the flood at which point they suddenly picked up a taste for meat.

Wonder if he'll revert to that now and drop the frozen TV dinner theory for carnivores surviving after the flood without wiping out all the other species.