The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 29-10-2012 10:58PM

shizz wrote: »

You've said this sentence before and I told you then what I'll tell you now. Evolution is not spontaneous. You say it's requirement is billions of years, all be it sarcastically I imagine. Nevertheless you cant say evolution is spontaneous and then say something which automatically makes what you said previous so obviously wrong a child could see it.

... so if Evolution wasn't spontaneous ... are you a theist ... who believes that it was intelligently directed? ... because that is the only alternative!!!

... the passage of time doesn't make CFSI increase ... and thus a dead thing ... remains dead ... and a thing with a particular level of CFSI ... remains at that level (or degenerates) ... without an input of intelligence.:)

The problem with Evolution is that a five year old can see through it ... but somebody who has been trained not to see its obvious problems may be unwilling ... or indeed unable to see them!!

... its 'group think' with bells on !!!:eek::)

The Concrete Doctor · 29-10-2012 11:18PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But think this through for a minute.

Were the earth in fact a smooth sphere (and were the smooth-sphere earth to have the same quantity of surface water that the real earth has) it would of course always be covered in water; there would be no question of floods.

We know, obviously, that the antediluvian world was not a smooth sphere. It did have permanently dry land, it did have mountains, etc.

Even if we assume that its grandients and eminences were not as great as today, they were nevertheless significant. Land which is only just above sea-level is regularly flooded by the sea, but the Flood is presented as exceptional, unique. Land which is far from the sea but has no gradient is regularly flooded by rivers. And mountains and valleys, even before the flood, were large enough/deep enough to affect agriculture, human settlement, population movement, etc.

Right. So even if mountains were not as high as today, they were certainly high enough that to cover all the earth with water would require much, much more water than the earth actually had. If this were not the case, then major floods would be routine, not exceptional. So to read the Genesis account literally, we still need God to create, and then presumably to annihilate, a considerable volume of water. Obviously, if God’s in a creatin’ mood, it makes no difference to Him whether he creates 1 litre of water, or 100 billion trillion gigalitres.

So assumptions or arguments about geology and the changing topology of the earth don’t make a literal reading of Genesis any easier or more plausible; they still require a special creation. And if you’re going to have a special creation then one which creates enough water to cover 8,400-metre Everest is just as plausible as one which creates enough water to cover 840-metre Everest.

Very interesting. OK Everest is about 5.5 miles high give or take.
7,000 years BC, it was maybe marginally smaller, lets say 5 miles high. If Nepal was submerged below 5 miles of water, it really does not matter about tidal situations, or the phases of the moon. The earth, as we know it would be under several miles of water, maybe 5 in places maybe four in other places, who knows. But that is an awful lot of water don't you think. Not quite as deep as the Marianas trench, but not far off it. Could that possibly be true?

J C · 29-10-2012 11:34PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Very interesting. OK Everest is about 5.5 miles high give or take.
7,000 years BC, it was maybe marginally smaller, lets say 5 miles high. If Nepal was submerged below 5 miles of water, it really does not matter about tidal situations, or the phases of the moon. The earth, as we know it would be under several miles of water, maybe 5 in places maybe four in other places, who knows. But that is an awful lot of water don't you think. Not quite as deep as the Marianas trench, but not far off it. Could that possibly be true?

The flood processes were catastrophic processes ... and the proto-Everest was more like 1.5 miles high ... can I remind you that the volcanic processes that created Everest are catastrophic processes that can add hundreds of feet to a mountain in a matter of days.

The billions of years may be a requirement to give Spontaneous Evolution some degree of credibility ... (provided you don't think too deeply about it) ... but they aren't required to explain high mountains that have been created by volcanic processes.

shizz · 29-10-2012 11:47PM

J C wrote: »

... so if Evolution wasn't spontaneous ... are you a theist ... who believes that it was intelligently directed? ... because that is the only alternative!!!

No It isn't spontaneous. No, no and no.

J C wrote: »

... the passage of time doesn't make CFSI increase ... and thus a dead thing ... remains dead ... and a thing with a particular level of CFSI ... remains at that level (or degenerates) ... without an input of intelligence.:)

Yeah you are right. CFSI can't increase with the passage of time because it's completely made up. So the rest of what you said is redundant.

J C wrote: »

The problem with Evolution is that a five year old can see through it ... but somebody who has been trained not to see its obvious problems may be unwilling ... or indeed unable to see them!!

... its 'group think' with bells on !!!:eek::)

I wonder if the situation was the other way around and the evidence for ID completely outweighed evolution, would you consider it "group think with bells on"?

Also what's with all the "......." between what you say?

J C · 30-10-2012 12:04AM

shizz wrote: »

No It isn't spontaneous. No, no and no.

... so you believe that 'God did it' then!!!!

shizz wrote: »

Yeah you are right. CFSI can't increase with the passage of time because it's completely made up. So the rest of what you said is redundant.

... you should have stopped ... when you were ahead ... and making sense!!!:)
Complex Functional Specified Information exists ... the writing on this page is CFSI ... stop denying reality ... can I assure that there is life after Evolution !!!:)

shizz wrote: »

I wonder if the situation was the other way around and the evidence for ID completely outweighed evolution, would you consider it "group think with bells on"?

... the evidence for ID completely outweighs the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ...
... but there is no danger of 'group think' developing, at this stage ... because there isn't 'wall to wall' acceptance of ID ... just yet!!!

shizz wrote: »

Also what's with all the "......." between what you say?

... it's to give you guys the chance to really think ... about what I'm saying!!!:):eek:

The Concrete Doctor · 30-10-2012 12:07AM

J C wrote: »

The flood processes were catastrophic processes ... and the proto-Everest was more like 1.5 miles high ... can I remind you that the volcanic processes that created Everest are catastrophic processes that can add hundreds of feet to a mountain in a matter of days.

The billions of years may be a requirement to give Spontaneous Evolution some degree of credibility ... (provided you don't think too deeply about it) ... but they aren't required to explain high mountains that have been created by volcanic processes.

Sorry, have I missed something? where do you get the information that Everest was only 1.5 miles high at the time of the flood?

J C · 30-10-2012 12:33AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Sorry, have I missed something? where do you get the information that Everest was only 1.5 miles high at the time of the flood?

The flood processes covered all mountains on earth with water ... and the volume of water on Earth places an upper limit of roughly 1.6 miles on the depth of water where the Earth's surface is smooth ... so a mountain that was significantly greater than 1.6 miles high would be above the water.

Lelantos · 30-10-2012 12:40AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Sorry, have I missed something? where do you get the information that Everest was only 1.5 miles high at the time of the flood?

That & his catastrophic flood process never happened. Unless we are reading the gospel according to Enid Blyton

J C · 30-10-2012 12:59AM

Lelantos wrote: »

That & his catastrophic flood process never happened. Unless we are reading the gospel according to Enid Blyton

... you should try looking at the vast quantities of sedimentary rocks laid down by water and full of fossilised dead things all over the Earth ... instead of reading works of fiction written by Enid Blyton ... or Charles Darwin !!!:):D

Peregrinus · 30-10-2012 01:16AM

J C wrote: »

The flood processes covered all mountains on earth with water ... and the volume of water on Earth places an upper limit of roughly 1.6 miles on the depth of water where the Earth's surface is smooth ... so a mountain that was significantly greater than 1.6 miles high would be above the water.

But if no part of the earth was more than 1.6 miles higher than any other part, then the entire surface of the earth would always be covered with water; there would be no possibility of any flood.

If you are to avoid the special creation of extra water, your theory requires that the earth should in fact have flatted itself (or been flattened) at the time of the flood, to allow existing waters to spread all over the earth. If the earth had always been flat enough for this, they you have to explain why it wasn't always covered with water.

Zombrex · 30-10-2012 01:21AM

philologos wrote: »

Some Christians regard the flood as having been regional which would correlate with other flood narratives in the region. It depends how you read eretz either as the whole land or the whole earth. The former can be read regionally where as the latter can't.

It would be difficult to kill all land animals and all humans bar Noah's family if the flood was just "regional"

Peregrinus · 30-10-2012 04:32AM

Zombrex wrote: »

It would be difficult to kill all land animals and all humans bar Noah's family if the flood was just "regional"

Sure. Treating the Genesis account as based on a likely historic regional event involves departing from strict literalism. But that's not a problem for most Christians.

Zombrex · 30-10-2012 09:47AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. Treating the Genesis account as based on a likely historic regional event involves departing from strict literalism. But that's not a problem for most Christians.

Well I know it is not a problem, when has issues of something making no sense ever been a problem for a Christian.

My point was there is far more issues with the story than simply whether the term was local or world wide. The entire story, from start to end, is set in a context where the flood is world wide. It is not, as phil seemed to be trying to claim, simply a matter of what a particular word means, with the story working either way. To view it as a local flood require that you discard practically all of the story as not actually happening.

Lantus · 30-10-2012 11:06AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Well I know it is not a problem, when has issues of something making no sense ever been a problem for a Christian.

My point was there is far more issues with the story than simply whether the term was local or world wide. The entire story, from start to end, is set in a context where the flood is world wide. It is not, as phil seemed to be trying to claim, simply a matter of what a particular word means, with the story working either way. To view it as a local flood require that you discard practically all of the story as not actually happening.

The concept of a world view would be a foreign concept to noah. His world was what he could see and stories of lands beyond what he couldn't. The sheer scale and size of the planet would of been unknown to the writers of the noah story.

You could say that god didn't need to cover all mountains as Noah wouldn't of gone anywhere near them anyway, (unless we are trying to say he circumnavigated the planet as well.) From noahs perspective as long as the ground around him was covered it was a 'world' flood.

IF the perception is that everest and all 8000m+ mountains were covered then firstly he would of died of altitude and lack of oxygen and cold if the sea level was that high. All plant life would of been obliterated by the pressure, not to mention that there is not enough water anywhere to generate that.

Its not the physical contradictions of the noah story that are so bad. Its the idea that a loving and highly intelligent being murdered pregnant women, babies and small children by drowning them. (As well as all the other supposidly evil people of all ages and gender.) Its just not reasonable to say that every person was 'bad'.

Its even worse to say that the only solution was to summararily execute them all. A being that has the ability and intelligence to create an entire universe with a planet that supports a rich and diverse eco system. But if he doesn't like the products he turned out just wipes them out by kiling them all. What is the point of that? And are those the actions of an intelligent being.

Zombrex · 30-10-2012 11:38AM

Lantus wrote: »

The concept of a world view would be a foreign concept to noah. His world was what he could see and stories of lands beyond what he couldn't. The sheer scale and size of the planet would of been unknown to the writers of the noah story.

That is only relevant if you are supposing that they made the story up, that the authors didn't understand how ridiculous the story was because they had no idea at the actual size of the Earth, what would be required to flood it or what would be required to get all land animals into a boat.

If that is what you are saying are I'm right there with you, but I don't think most Christians believe the story was made up.

If the story isn't made up then what is being transcribed is the word of God. And I think God would know how big the world is and how many animals are in it, even if Noah or the authors of this story didn't.

doctoremma · 30-10-2012 12:29PM

If it was a local flood, how koalas?

Peregrinus · 30-10-2012 12:56PM

Zombrex wrote: »

If that is what you are saying are I'm right there with you, but I don't think most Christians believe the story was made up.

If the story isn't made up then what is being transcribed is the word of God. And I think God would know how big the world is and how many animals are in it, even if Noah or the authors of this story didn't.

False dichotomy. It's not the case that the story is either pure invention or a journalistic literalist account dictated by God. I don't see any difficulty with seeing it as a hyperbolic account of a large but local flood which appeared to the authors to encompass the entire world, or at any rate the entire world that they knew of.

Zombrex · 30-10-2012 07:21PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy. It's not the case that the story is either pure invention or a journalistic literalist account dictated by God. I don't see any difficulty with seeing it as a hyperbolic account of a large but local flood which appeared to the authors to encompass the entire world, or at any rate the entire world that they knew of.

You don't see any problem with that? Really?

Ok, so was God lying/mistaken when he said these things to Noah? Was he lying/mistaken when he made his new covenant with him?

Or where the authors making up what God said?

Gen 7
The Lord then said to Noah ... "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

Gen 9
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you

So this either is what God said, in which case it makes no sense if theres was just a local flood. Or the authors are making up or exaggerating what God said.

Either way (and if you think that is false dichotomy please point out a third option) that is a problem.

Peregrinus · 30-10-2012 11:36PM

Zombrex wrote: »

. . . Either way (and if you think that is false dichotomy please point out a third option) that is a problem.

Well, we're looking at the whole story here. Is it beyond the bounds of possiblity that particular details could be literary embellishments or hyperbole, and yet the story might have a factual grounding in an actual, but local, flood?

pauldla · 31-10-2012 06:14AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, we're looking at the whole story here. Is it beyond the bounds of possiblity that particular details could be literary embellishments or hyperbole, and yet the story might have a factual grounding in an actual, but local, flood?

Literary embellishments or hyperbole in the Bible? Caution, Peregrinus, that ice may be thinner than you think...!

Peregrinus · 31-10-2012 06:41AM

pauldla wrote: »

Literary embellishments or hyperbole in the Bible? Caution, Peregrinus, that ice may be thinner than you think...!

Curiously enough, it's only simplistic biblical literalists and atheist/agnostics who tend to denounce the idea that scriptural texts might employ literary devices in the way that other texts do. The idea is otherwise thoroughly mainstream.

Still, necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows. Or something like that. :-)

pauldla · 31-10-2012 06:49AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Curiously enough, it's only simplistic biblical literalists and atheist/agnostics who tend to denounce the idea that scriptural texts might employ literary devices in the way that other texts do. The idea is otherwise thoroughly mainstream.

Still, necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows. Or something like that. :-)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by mainstream.

But it does lead to wonder which bits are literary embellishments and hyperbole, which bits aren't, and how one can tell the difference.

Peregrinus · 31-10-2012 07:00AM

pauldla wrote: »

But it does lead to wonder which bits are literary embellishments and hyperbole, which bits aren't, and how one can tell the difference.

You have that problem with any difficult or complex text, surely? That's why learning to read involves more than just memorising the alphabet. You need to understand something about genre, context, coherence and critical reading against experience and reason.

C'mon, atheists are supposed to be bright (or so Richard Dawkins assures me, anyway). Is a moderately intelligent approach to reading not only beyond their capabilities, but even beyond their imagination?

(Or are they - perish the unworthy thought! - just being mischeivous in pretending to be attracted to fundamentalist readings of scripture?)

pauldla · 31-10-2012 09:51AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have that problem with any difficult or complex text, surely? That's why learning to read involves more than just memorising the alphabet. You need to understand something about genre, context, coherence and critical reading against experience and reason.

C'mon, atheists are supposed to be bright (or so Richard Dawkins assures me, anyway). Is a moderately intelligent approach to reading not only beyond their capabilities, but even beyond their imagination?

(Or are they - perish the unworthy thought! - just being mischeivous in pretending to be attracted to fundamentalist readings of scripture?)

Indeed. It just seems to me that talking about hyperbole or embellishments in the Bible is a trifle odd. Why should God have need of hyperbole or embellishments?

Peregrinus · 31-10-2012 10:18AM

pauldla wrote: »

Indeed. It just seems to me that talking about hyperbole or embellishments in the Bible is a trifle odd. Why should God have need of hyperbole or embellishments?

God's not the intended readership, Pauldla!

pauldla · 31-10-2012 10:32AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

God's not the intended readership, Pauldla!

Yes, I understand that. It still doesn't explain why his works, deeds and/or teachings may require hyperbole and embellishments.

Peregrinus · 31-10-2012 11:23AM

pauldla wrote: »

Yes, I understand that. It still doesn't explain why his works, deeds and/or teachings may require hyperbole and embellishments.

Well, the authors, editors, etc who collectively created the texts that we know have employed the literary genres, etc, with which they were familiar and which were characteristic of their respective cultures. What else would you expect?

pauldla · 31-10-2012 11:33AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the authors, editors, etc who collectively created the texts that we know have employed the literary genres, etc, with which they were familiar and which were characteristic of their respective cultures. What else would you expect?

If the Bible is indeed the word of God, inspired by and guided in its compostition by God, I'd expect the Word of God. No hyperbole, no embellishments. Especially not in a story - the Great Flood - which is supposed to illustrate the Wrath of God, the Might of God, and the Mercy of God. Is the truth not enough, that bells and whistles have to be added too?

PDN · 31-10-2012 11:42AM

pauldla wrote: »

If the Bible is indeed the word of God, inspired by and guided in its compostition by God, I'd expect the Word of God. No hyperbole, no embellishments. Especially not in a story - the Great Flood - which is supposed to illustrate the Wrath of God, the Might of God, and the Mercy of God. Is the truth not enough, that bells and whistles have to be added too?

What you're really saying is that you would expect the Word of God to be expressed in a style and format that is expressly designed for someone who lives in Western Europe in the early 21st Century.

That ain't going to happen.

The Word of God was written using the literary style and conventions of its initial intended audience. And, if we make a little effort to understand that context, we can benefit from it just as well.

Peregrinus · 31-10-2012 12:54PM

pauldla wrote: »

If the Bible is indeed the word of God, inspired by and guided in its compostition by God, I'd expect the Word of God. No hyperbole, no embellishments.

Have you considered that God's views on matters literary may not coincide with yours?:)

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments