The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

systemsready wrote: »

Personally I would agree with the receding underground theory, and probably burning itself away when the molten lava touched it.

Water doesn't burn, it evaporates into steam. That steam becomes cloud, so we still have to put 4 billion cubic kilometers of water somewhere, and it certainly isn't in the air. Nor is it in the ground, because the density of the Earth tells us there are no big pockets of ice or water down there.

systemsready wrote: »

Details are not what matters here.

Creationists disagree. The Word is literal truth-the Word of the Lord as revealed to humans who were gifted with with exacting fidelity to the Word. The Word is inerrant. This is the mentality to which you are aligning yourself.

systemsready wrote: »

Because as you know..."The devil is in the detail". If you have a belief that is the foundation of your entire being, and you trust the messengers (prophets) of that belief. Then if a non believer comes and tells you that what happened is an impossibility (their opinion only) . Then you look at what you have as a believer, and you also look at what the unbeliever has, and you compare, you say to yourself, If I 'trust' the so called evidence of today (which may change in the future) and abandon those Prophets who have shown me the bigger picture, what will I become? A lump of meaningless flesh on the earth!

The prophets haven't actually shown you anything. They've written things which may or may not be true. Similarly, scientists have written things which may or may not be true. How do you determine which view is correct when there is a conflict, if you dismiss evidence? All you're left with if you deny the importance of empiricism, is personal preference. This is why creationists invest time and energy in arguing against specific points of evidence. They at least recognize that empiricism has value.

Evidence doesn't change over time, it accumulates and our understanding changes. This isn't arbitrary, it doesn't utterly unmake previous knowledge. If that were so, we'd never have progressed from using stone tools to communicating via a global information network. You should be a bit less afraid of empiricism- it has given you a lot despite your lack of faith in it.

As to your meaning- if there is a God, you don't know His view of your meaning. That leaves you with your own assessment, which you would still have even if you abandoned your faith.

systemsready wrote: »

"Originally Posted by Atomic Horror Genesis 6:19
"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

If you wanted to delve into detail, why were there 8 people on board the Ark? Surely if it was going to be exactly like it said there would be only Noah and his wife. 2 of every sort of creature, male and female.

Fundamentalist Christians do not consider humans to be animals. Also, Genesis later specifies that some other specific animals should be present in greater numbers, so the "2 by 2" rule is not hard and fast, but the "all living things" rule absolutely is.

J C wrote: »

... the water is now predominantly in the Oceans!!!

So theirs less dry land than before the flood? In which case the oceans were far more salted before the flood and so on and on. The problems keep mounting up.
Just cut your losses and come over to the side of a creation myth that tell a truth using mythological themes and situations.

J C wrote: »

... the water is now predominantly in the Oceans!!!

There's not enough. It takes about 5 billion cubic kilometers of water to cover the Earth to the depth specified in Genesis 7:19. The oceans, the ice caps, fresh water and and the clouds combined contain about 1.3 billion cubic kilometers. Where did the rest go?

J C wrote: »

There was no need to take water dwelling creatures aboard ... as the one thing that wasn't in short supply during the Flood was water!!:)

But according to Genesis, the only water available was a global ocean of approximately 33% the salinity of normal sea water- being as it was diluted by the addition of nearly 4 billion cubic kilometers of rainwater. That's not survivable for many ocean species or fresh water species whose habitats would have been swallowed in the flood also.

Any sign of those specific examples of the fruits of ID research? Been asking a few days now and you said you had them.

People, people people...for the love of whatever...take a step back and read over your posts. I had to pinch myself just in case I had ended up in the Bible belt in the US listening to some fundamentalist right wing Christian Republican. Where have all the rational people gone?? This thread is entering the realms of the crazy people......please, real world people, real world...for our children's sakes. Mind you, judging by the intelligence and questioning minds of our youth, I think we will be ok....

J C wrote: »

... the water is now predominantly in the Oceans!!!

Ah JC... you like to talk as if you understand science completely and use that as your reason for believing creationism, but once again you show that you have even the basics arse ways.

J C wrote: »

If the surface of the Earth was smooth there is enough water in the oceans to cover the whole Earth to a depth of over 1 mile. Mountains arose as balancing ocean troughs were created by the enormous tectonic movements that were a feature of the Flood ... and so the water ran off the lands thus created.

Funny that. I don't recall Genesis saying that the Earth was completely flat. It certainly states that there was land and not completely covered in water, thus meaning that it wasn't completely flat.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the flood happened after genesis?

J C wrote: »

The flood tectonic processes caused a rebalancing of land and water. The inundation phase started off with the dry land sinking and the lands under water rising to a position where water covered the entire Earth. It is also thought that there was considerable volumes of water under the dry land before the flood and this was squeezed upwards by the tectonic processes that triggered the Flood.
The recession phase involved the sinking of the ocean floors relative to the rising of dry land and mountains which created the current land/ocean balance that we see today.

Genesis makes no reference to the land moving. That event would have been at least as remarkable as the global flood- so why is it not mentioned at all?

Care to answer my other questions? Or shall I add them to that giant list of my questions you've been dodging over the last few years?

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Lantus wrote: »

The important thing is that we can makes easy(er) for oursleves. With modern technology and our ability to problems solve we can create environments where suffering and the distorted traits of society can be edcated out (unfortuantley this would include myths and religion and

I'm not trying to be cruel but there are six spelling errors in those two sentences. If you want readers to follow your argument is it unfair to ask that you do a quick spell check?

I don't think suffering will be educated out any time soon, not so long as humans remain mortal. Myths are stories created to help explain why we suffer and religions are created to help us deal with our current suffering. I'll admit that they too often let us down but since the education of the poor was created by Christians I wouldn't go putting them in opposition to education.

I respectfully suggest that arguing with individuals on the Internet over whether each story in the old testament is literally true may not be the most productive use of one's life. My apologies if my nazi grammar comment above seems a little petty but like school principal Skinner, in many ways, I'm a petty man.

These...individuals that believe such rubbish (young earth etc.) are a danger to society in that they are vehemently anti-science and are bent on poisoning the educational system. They want to pollute said system with their preposterous beliefs, and insist that their "truth" be taught, in soma cases as science, to the children of this country. I say no, absolutely not. I will endeavour to prevent this from ever occurring. Part of this involves arguing with such people over the Internet such that others might see what I have to say and perhaps change their minds...

Lelantos wrote: »

If I remember my fairytales it was 300 cubits long & 50 wide. Now, people will argue about how big a cubit is, but its a Greek & Roman measure of approx 18".. So, the ark was 450 feet long. Now this doesn't seem like much, but bear in mind, Europe, the Americas, the poles & australasia hadn't been discovered then. More than enough room for everything in that case!

So at 450ft long and 75ft wide they fit two of every living animal, if the flood lasted a yr then this would have to include birds, can't see them flapping about for a year without food. The largest oil tanker is about 1500ft long with a weight of 260,000 gross tonnage and I doubt you would get 2 of everything onto that.
I found this online,
Animals: estimated 3-30 million species
|
|--Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
| `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
| |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
| |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
| |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
| |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
| |--Annelida: 12,000 species
| `--Arthropods
| `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
| |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
| `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
`--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
|--Amphibians: 5,400 species
|--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
|--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
`--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species

Not saying it's accurate but even at a +/- 20% that's still millions of animals (mammals, reptiles, birds, insects).
My dad was like petrocelli (sorry if you're not over 45 you won't get that one! it's a '70s detective show, at the end of each show, Petrocelli was seen building his house, I was years watching that show and the block-work never got above 5ft), anyway my Dad build a garage, house extensions all single handed but took donkey years, how did Moses do it in a life time ? where did he get the materials to build such a structure, the required labour force, the cost. What did the neighbours think ?