- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi David
Stu: Either you agree it is a factual account of a real event, or it is not. Are you saying this is a fable, not an historical record?
Quote I'm saying it's a miracle, I'm saying “God has” done this thing. If you want to call that playing the miracle card, then that is what I have done. But, THAT IS what the Bible says.
OK. So you can’t explain it then. Fine.Quote The Bible does not say this strange thing happened for no reason, and that it must be because conceiving near those different colored things. If it had just out of nowhere mentioned that as something that happened, yes,you'd be right. The Bible would be wrong.
So now you want to claim that there is a causal relationship, yet it is not explainable, and that is the explanation.Quote But God was behind this, as the Bible states, buried, way down deep, a whole 10 or so verses later! Come on!
So, your argument I must believe is that if there was someone who created DNA, genes, the human body, etc, they wouldn't have the know how to play with these things.
That is not relevant. I don’t care who did it, I want an explanation of how it happened. You haven’t given one.Quote Yet, humans are just beginning to play with these things. What do you think they'd be capable of in 50 years? And how would that compare with someone who created it in the first place? Your thinking seems so small to me, so narrow.
Is that because I demand a clear answer and won’t put up with contradictory waffle?Quote You argue essentially, is that this could not have happened because science has yet to understand dna perfectly, along with all the laws of the universe.
We understand perfectly how DNA combines in fertilisation to give a new combination of alleles. You cannot muddy this water.
Stu: 2. To accommodate animals and food the ark is too small. Even if you limit it to the minimum ‘kinds’ there is no reasonable way to fit everything inQuote Really stu? Which “kinds” were you referring to. Can I see your list. .
You should be grateful that the author of the article I referred has given any leeway at all towards reducing the number of animals required to be on the alleged ark, using a term that you can’t define either. Shall we cancel the ‘kinds’ thing and try to accommodate every species that is alive today or went extinct since the time of the supposed flood? That turns an impossible situation into an even more impossible situation.Quote So you do think there were lions in Israel?
When? According to answers in Genesis, there must have been.Stu: When NASA failed to bend a rocket nose-cone on a solid firmament, did anyone correct Genesis in their bible?
Quote I don't remember ever seeing “solid firmament” in the Bible. One meaning of firmament is “sky” remember?
No if you translate from Hebrew it’s a sheet that can be beaten out, and we went over the whole sky thing already, REMEMBER?Quote I think you somehow connect sky to something symbolic, obviously symoblic in Revelation and bent everything in sad and obvious ways to try to make the Bible incorrect.
Oops. Freudian slip there.Stu: Would you like to elaborate on exactly the size of effect you would expect from a difference in the environment of a matter of some tens of days on the abundance or rate of decay of buried C14?
Quote 10 days? Is that how long the water canopy, or extra water was in the sky (“firmament” for you).
So:
a. You interpret ‘tens of days’ as 10 days. I seem to remember you requiring 6 days to be billions of years not long ago.b. You are clearly not interested in estimating the effect of the mythical flood on C14 abundance and decay. Not that it is for me to dictate your conscience but I think the honest thing for you to do would be to retract your snide implied smear on radiocarbon techniques and resoundingly support it as good science, especially given the amount of biblical history that has been confirmed using the technique!
c. I think you should read Genesis again to clarify for yourself what is and isn’t said about the floodwater and how it supposedly comes to be on earth.
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ April 29 2008,11:58) Quote (david @ April 28 2008,15:58) Quote David, Colter tells us to look at the Urantia papers, they are very detailed, no vague allegories or symbolism. Your defense of the Genesis creation story would apply to them as well. So what is the difference?
Colter, I've never read them. Would you mind quoting them.
Now you've really done it
.
Uh Oh. The biblical flood was nothing compared with the UB deluge to come!Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 28 2008,23:13) Next question: How did the ark do what is claimed in Genesis? 1.A wooden boat half the length of the alleged ark would be reaching the stress limits of wood
as a building material, let alone one 450 feet long.2.To accommodate animals and food the ark is too small. Even if you limit it to the minimum ‘kinds’ there is no reasonable way to fit everything in.
3.Even a conservative calculation of the total mass of the animals and their food would have the ark exceed its buoyancy by 1/3. This ark would sink not long after it was half-filled.
The details of calculations are entertainingly outlined here:
http://groups.google.com/group….rnum=17
How did the ark do what is claimed in Genesis?
Stuart
The impossible ark, too small to do its job and too big to be made of wood.Anyone?
I'm curious, but are there any theories on the survival of various aquatic life forms as the rain waters diluted and then caused the mixture of fresh water bodies with salt water? How many species that normally live in salt or fresh water can survive sustained periods in brackish water?
Quote OK. So you can’t explain it then. Fine. And neither can I explain most of the things scientists are doing with genes these days–things considered miracles or impossible just 10 years ago.
Quote So now you want to claim that there is a causal relationship, yet it is not explainable, and that is the explanation.
I haven't changed what I've stated about this in the least. I think your unability to see past what you want to see in this scripture has blinded you to what I said.Quote That is not relevant. I don’t care who did it, I want an explanation of how it happened. You haven’t given one. And nor can I, any more than any scientist on earth could explain a single thing about genes just a couple decades ago. I simply lack the knowledge God has.
Quote Is that because I demand a clear answer and won’t put up with contradictory waffle?
No, your thinking is small for the exact reason I stated. You dismiss as impossible anything you cannot explain. The history of science has taught us that this is stupid. That's what I meant.Quote Stu: 2. To accommodate animals and food the ark is too small. Even if you limit it to the minimum ‘kinds’ there is no reasonable way to fit everything in
Show me the numbers. Show me the “kinds” you're referring to. Show me something.Quote When? According to answers in Genesis, there must have been.
So you don't know and don't care, presumably because if there were, you'd have to wonder where the fossils are.Quote No if you translate from Hebrew it’s a sheet that can be beaten out, and we went over the whole sky thing already, REMEMBER? No, the “root word” (raqa) from which “raqia” is drawn is regularly used in the sense of beating out something solid.
But in some cases in the Bible, it is not sound reasoning to rule out figurative usage of the word.
“With him can you beat out [tar·qi′a‛] the skies hard like a molten mirror?” (Job 37:18)
That the literal beating out of some solid celestial vault is not meant can be seen from the fact that the word “skies” here comes from a word (sha′chaq) also rendered “film of dust” or “clouds” (Isa 40:15; Ps 18:11), and in view of the nebulous quality of that which is ‘beaten out,’ it is clear that the Bible writer is only figuratively comparing the skies to a metal mirror whose burnished face gives off a bright reflection.—Compare Da 12:3.Checking the definition of that word, one definition is “expanse” and that is how: Ro; Fn; Yg; An; NW translate it.
King James and American Standard have that word “expanse” or “expansion” in their footnotes to that verse.Quote So:
a. You interpret ‘tens of days’ as 10 days. I seem to remember you requiring 6 days to be billions of years not long ago.
Could you please provide a verse. I have no idea why you're talking abou 10 days.Quote b. You are clearly not interested in estimating the effect of the mythical flood on C14 abundance and decay. Not that it is for me to dictate your conscience but I think the honest thing for you to do would be to retract your snide implied smear on radiocarbon techniques and resoundingly support it as good science, especially given the amount of biblical history that has been confirmed using the technique! “The earth's atmosphere is made up of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), varying amounts of water vapor, and trace amounts of hydrogen, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon. 1
Cosmic radiation strikes the atmosphere all the time. Every once in a while, a negatively charged electron strikes one of the positively charged protons in a nitrogen atom. The positive and negative charges cancel out, turning the proton into a neutron. The electron is so light compared to a proton or a neutron that it doesn’t change the weight of the proton. So, this nitrogen atom that used to have seven protons and seven neutrons now has six protons and eight neutrons and still has 14 atomic mass units (6 + 8 = 14). Since it has six protons, it is no longer nitrogen. It is carbon. Specifically, it is 14C.
So, the production of 14C is the result of a random collision between an electron from space and a nitrogen atom in the atmosphere.
The amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere is effectively constant. Yes, the conversion of a nitrogen atom to a carbon atom does decrease the total number of nitrogen atoms, but it makes about as much difference as removing a teaspoon of water from the Pacific Ocean. Remember, all the carbon in the entire atmosphere makes up less than 0.03% of all the atoms in the atmosphere. And 14C is rare compared to 12C. (We were unable to find a reference in the literature that gives the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, but we can estimate it from the atomic mass number. The atomic mass of carbon is 12.01115. If we neglect 13C, we can say that 14 * X + 12*(1-X) = 12.01115. Solving for X tells us that 14C accounts for less than 0.6% of all carbon.) So, the amount of nitrogen in the air is not appreciably decreased when 0.6% of 0.03% (that is, 0.018%) is converted to 14C.
We have to assume that the average amount of radiation striking the atmosphere is constant, at least over a period of thousands of years. Our justification for that assumption is that most of the radiation comes from the sun, and the sun has been shining with apparently constant brightness for the last few thousand years of human history. Although sunspots might cause daily fluctuations in radiation that increase and decrease every 11 years or so, over centuries, the average amount of radiation remains the same.
If the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere stays the same, and the amount of cosmic radiation stays the same, 14C will be produced at a steady rate. “
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i10f.htmIf this and if that and if this stays the same and we'll assume this and we'll assume there wasn
't a water canopy….“The assumption we have to make when computing carbon 14 dates is that the ratio of 14C to 12C is essentially the same today as it was when the thing we are dating died. That’s a good assumption to make if the Earth is more than 41,335 years old. Here’s why.
If the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere remains constant, and the amount of radiation remains constant, then the production of 14C in the upper atmosphere will remain constant. If the decay rate of 14C is constant, then the amount of 14C in the atmosphere will reach equilibrium in five time constants. Since the time constant of 14C decay is 8,267 years, the concentration of 14C will stabilize after 41,335 years. If there is more 14C, it will decay faster than it is produced and the amount of 14C in the air will decrease. If there is less 14C, then it will decay slower than it is produced and the amount of 14C in the air will increase. At equilibrium, the decay rate (which depends on the amount of 14C in the air) exactly matches the production rate (which is constant).
Suppose an asteroid struck the Earth 65 million years ago. It could have altered the amount of carbon or nitrogen in the air somehow. But even if it did, 41,335 years later the ratio of 14C to 12C would have reached a new equilibrium, and it would be the same today.
Suppose an asteroid struck the Earth 65 million years ago. It could have altered the amount of carbon or nitrogen in the air somehow. But even if it did, 41,335 years later the ratio of 14C to 12C would have reached a new equilibrium, and it would be the same today.
Suppose there had been a major atmospheric disturbance, such as the one described in the flood myths of many diverse cultures about 4,000 years ago. That’s roughly one-half of the 8,267 year 14C decay time constant, so the ratio of 14C to 12C would still be changing today.
Moving on:
There’s no doubt in the scientific world that the 14C ratio was different a few thousand years ago than it is today. That’s why 14C dates have to be “calibrated”.The visitor center at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest (about 140 miles north of Ridgecrest on U.S. 395) has a display that tells how 14C dates are calibrated using bristlecone pine tree rings.
I was surprised when I saw an actual bristlecone core sample. It was not much thicker than the lead in a No. 2 pencil, and it looked like a core taken out of a roll of toilet paper. The tree rings were paper thin, and they all looked almost identical. They certainly didn’t have definite wide and narrow bands like grocery store bar codes. The differences in the rings were subtle, to say the least.
Scientists (with better eyesight and more patience than I have) counted thousands of these tiny rings. Then, assuming that the tree only produced one ring per year, they determined how old the tree was when it died. By correlating its youngest rings with rings of living trees, they determined the year when the tree died and (presumably) knew how long it had been since each ring died. When they used 14C dating on the oldest rings, they didn’t get the same age as they got from the number of rings. They believed the rings rather than the carbon 14 measurement! So, they used fudge factors (which they call “calibration”) to “correct” the 14C date.
Apparently, if the 14C date isn’t what it is supposed to be, one can adjust it for any imaginable reason–as long as one doesn’t imagine a global flood.
Quote (kejonn @ April 30 2008,10:29) I'm curious, but are there any theories on the survival of various aquatic life forms as the rain waters diluted and then caused the mixture of fresh water bodies with salt water? How many species that normally live in salt or fresh water can survive sustained periods in brackish water?
The link I posted above has some cojecture about that point. Marine species are sensitive to changes in salinity:http://www.marinedepotlive.com/mdl_acclimation.html
I wonder what direction seals thought they were facing during the alleged flood:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mypwpufagt8mtgdf/
Stuart
Hi David
(part 1: the fallacy of the ‘therefore god did it’ argument)
Quote And neither can I explain most of the things scientists are doing with genes these days–things considered miracles or impossible just 10 years ago… Stu: That is not relevant. I don’t care who did it, I want an explanation of how it happened. You haven’t given one.
So is ignorance a reason to say the bible is right?Quote And nor can I, any more than any scientist on earth could explain a single thing about genes just a couple decades ago. I simply lack the knowledge God has. Are you saying that human ignorance is evidence for divine action?
Stuart
Hi David
(part 2: the relevance of the title of the thread)
Quote I haven't changed what I've stated about this in the least. I think your unability to see past what you want to see in this scripture has blinded you to what I said.
The thread is about biblical literalism, not biblical interpretation. Remember that phrase of yours in that other thread I asked you to note? I think that is now relevant.Quote …your thinking is small for the exact reason I stated. You dismiss as impossible anything you cannot explain. The history of science has taught us that this is stupid. That's what I meant.
That is a pretty arrogant spin. I want biblical literalists to explain the claims in the bible. What does that have to do with what I can’t explain? It is not me claiming that there was a flood, it is scripture. So, what flood? What firmament? What wooden boat? Put up an explanation or retract the scripture! If you don’t know, then be honest and say that you have no reason to believe it is true, that you just do because you believe it on faith, but it could be wrong. Scientists reserve the possibility of being wrong even though they are supported by evidence, yet your thinking is ‘big’ enough to believe anything written in scripture and maintain the claim even when it is contradicted by evidence.Stuart
Hi David
(part 3: the flood relitigated)
Stu: 2. To accommodate animals and food the ark is too small. Even if you limit it to the minimum ‘kinds’ there is no reasonable way to fit everything in
Quote Show me the numbers. Show me the “kinds” you're referring to. Show me something.
Please read the link I gave.Stu: (Re Lions) When? According to answers in Genesis, there must have been.
Quote So you don't know and don't care, presumably because if there were, you'd have to wonder where the fossils are.
Let’s try your argument. Is there an oral or written history that discusses lions in Israel after the supposed flood? There isn’t for the kiwi.Stu: You interpret ‘tens of days’ as 10 days. I seem to remember you requiring 6 days to be billions of years not long ago.
Quote Could you please provide a verse. I have no idea why you're talking abou 10 days.
I didn’t say 10 days anywhere. You made that up.Gen 7:17And the flood was forty days upon the earth.
Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Gen 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the one hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
So, since Genesis is not clearly consistent, the only way to represent the length of the flood is to say ‘tens of days’ (4 lots of ten) or ‘tens of days’ (15 lots of ten). Which do you think it was?Stuart
Hi David
(part 4: the firmament relitigated)
This thread asks biblical literalists to explain the absurdities (or pearls, depending on your point of view) therin.
If there is a point of translation in dispute, perhaps we can find scholars who have a basis to judge the original intent of the scripture. At that point I suppose you have to say that the KJV is not divine-inspired scripture but a perversion of it. This is the literal scripture, written in English a few hundred years ago:The firmament / heaven (interchangeable terms according to Gen 1:8):
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, 38:23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
(May we presume all this Jobian ice sits on the firmament? It is a meteorological stretch to claim it stays in suspension in the air – you would be able to see it then. Maybe it is metaphorical. Maybe it is mythology)
Eze 1:22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. 1:23 And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. 1:24 And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings. 1:25 And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Dan 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mar 13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
Rev 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
If we are happy to add some apocrypha (at least for an understanding of contemporary views):
3 Baruch 3:7-8 And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest.
1 Enoch 72:2-5 This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky.
Now, to my reading these verses fit into one of two categories:
1. similies or metaphors for the appearance of the sky,
or 2. literal descriptions of a solid structureNot a single one is a literal description of a gaseous atmosphere that decreases to nothing, with stars that are enormous distances away. None comes close.
Stuart
Hi David
(part 5: radiocarbon dating)
Stu: You are clearly not interested in estimating the effect of the mythical flood on C14 abundance and decay. Not that it is for me to dictate your conscience but I think the honest thing for you to do would be to retract your snide implied smear on radiocarbon techniques and resoundingly support it as good science, especially given the amount of biblical history that has been confirmed using the technique!
Quote Suppose an asteroid struck the Earth 65 million years ago. It could have altered the amount of carbon or nitrogen in the air somehow. But even if it did, 41,335 years later the ratio of 14C to 12C would have reached a new equilibrium, and it would be the same today.
Good to see you demonstrating a point of reliability of radiocarbon.Quote Suppose there had been a major atmospheric disturbance, such as the one described in the flood myths of many diverse cultures about 4,000 years ago. That’s roughly one-half of the 8,267 year 14C decay time constant, so the ratio of 14C to 12C would still be changing today.
But since there is no mechanism suggested for such a change in ratio, no corroborating evidence for it, no evidence for a global flood and dendrochronological calibration (below) well past 4,000 years ago, the whole suggestion is pretty spurious.Quote Moving on:
There’s no doubt in the scientific world that the 14C ratio was different a few thousand years ago than it is today. That’s why 14C dates have to be “calibrated”.
The visitor center at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest (about 140 miles north of Ridgecrest on U.S. 395) has a display that tells how 14C dates are calibrated using bristlecone pine tree rings.
I was surprised when I saw an actual bristlecone core sample. It was not much thicker than the lead in a No. 2 pencil, and it looked like a core taken out of a roll of toilet paper. The tree rings were paper thin, and they all looked almost identical. They certainly didn’t have definite wide and narrow bands like grocery store bar codes. The differences in the rings were subtle, to say the least.
Scientists (with better eyesight and more patience than I have) counted thousands of these tiny rings. Then, assuming that the tree only produced one ring per year, they determined how old the tree was when it died. By correlating its youngest rings with rings of living trees, they determined the year when the tree died and (presumably) knew how long it had been since each ring died. When they used 14C dating on the oldest rings, they didn’t get the same age as they got from the number of rings. They believed the rings rather than the carbon 14 measurement! So, they used fudge factors (which they call “calibration”) to “correct” the 14C date.
Apparently, if the 14C date isn’t what it is supposed to be, one can adjust it for any imaginable reason–as long as one doesn’t imagine a global flood.
I know you know exactly why calibration is necessary, but your bluff needs to be called. Nuclear weapons testing increased the ratio of 14C:12C in the middle of the 20th century and combustion of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution has released ‘old carbon’, richer in 12C, which has decreased the 14C:12C ratio. Real scientists have determined that bristlecone pines lay down either no new layer or one new layer per year. That means that the only error in dendrochronological calibration is to make the radiocarbon results appear younger than they really are. The only suggestion that bristlecone pines lay down more than one layer per year is a piece of conjecture by one creation ‘scientist’ (shall we wonder about his motivation?). By overlapping matching bristlecone pine dendrochronology there has been established a continuous record of ring growth that goes back at least 7,500 years and some scientists claim up to 10,000 years. Isn’t it interesting that in that time there was no incidence of a complete stoppage of growth of all bristlecone pines as you would expect to find if there had been a flood that did what Genesis claims.Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ April 30 2008,20:56) What did the various animals eat when they left the ark? What did the carnivores eat?
Manna? From heaven / the firmament? Maybe god left one of the windows open and some fell out for them to graze on.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 30 2008,05:12) Quote (kejonn @ April 30 2008,20:56) What did the various animals eat when they left the ark? What did the carnivores eat?
Manna? From heaven / the firmament? Maybe god left one of the windows open and some fell out for them to graze on.Stuart
Did Yahweh toss out meat-flavored manna for the carnivores?Next, where did the olive leaf come from? Olive trees would not survive the flood. Perhaps a sapling?
Quote (kejonn @ April 30 2008,23:44) Quote (Stu @ April 30 2008,05:12) Quote (kejonn @ April 30 2008,20:56) What did the various animals eat when they left the ark? What did the carnivores eat?
Manna? From heaven / the firmament? Maybe god left one of the windows open and some fell out for them to graze on.Stuart
Did Yahweh toss out meat-flavored manna for the carnivores?Next, where did the olive leaf come from? Olive trees would not survive the flood. Perhaps a sapling?
An olive tree does not have the mechanisms that a salt-water plant like a mangrove has for excluding salt. Even mangroves have to move excess salt into old leaves for disposal. Osmosis in salt water would quickly render an olive tree pretty limp pretty quickly. An olive leaf lasting either 40 days or 150 days under salt water, and being in a state to be carried by a dove is just implausible. A new post-deluvian olive tree growing in a few weeks is similar in its credibility.It is the breathtaking boldness of the handwaving attempts to gloss over the holes in the 'web they weaved' that astounds me. All done with a straight face, or even hurt indignation. As David has played his miracle trump card, it may be time to move on to the next question. Of course, the other miracle is that no matter how many miracle cards are played, there is always a replacement ready. A poker hand of an infinite number of aces, played with a poker face.
It is written in the Holy Wikipedia: According to a telephone poll conducted by ABCNEWS/Primetime in 2004, 60% of US residents believe the story of Noah's Ark is literally true.
Stuart
stuart.
Quote Stu: That is not relevant. I don’t care who did it, I want an explanation of how it happened. You haven’t given one.
So is ignorance a reason to say the bible is right?No, and NOR IS IT A REASON TO SAY THE BIBLE IS WRONG. That's my point.
Find something that actually contradicts something we absolutely know to be true. Anything.
Instead, you can only continue to say:
Quote That is not relevant. I don’t care who did it, I want an explanation of how it happened. You haven’t given one. Today, stu, there's a lot of things we can explain. And there's a lot of things we're still working on.
IF PRESENTLY NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING MEANS IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, THEN FOR MOST OF MAN'S HISTORY, NOTHING HAPPENED. 'It doesn't exist until we can explain it' isn't scientific.
A hundred years ago, there was A LOT less we could explain. 500 years before that, even less we could explain.To me, you seem like someone who lived 1000 years ago asking how light works. And because no one could really explain it to you, you rejected light as a fantasy. And you kept ranting: “I wanna explanation.” But no one back then had any explanation to give.
What you continue to call a “miracle card” I would call an ignorance card.
You should read “hyperspace.” I think you'd enjoy it. Maybe it would give you some insights into how something normal for someone in another dimension (God) is a miracle for us.I'm sorry I don't have time to reply to your posts now. I've been quite busy. Only checked out this site a couple times in the past month. Really, even now, I should be working on other things. And during the day, now that the snow is gone, I'm much less inclined to use my free time by being stuck inside.
Quote That is a pretty arrogant spin. I want biblical literalists to explain the claims in the bible. What does that have to do with what I can’t explain? Only this: It makes clear that this all means very little.
David
Stu: That is not relevant. I don’t care who did it, I want an explanation of how it happened. You haven’t given one.
So is ignorance a reason to say the bible is right?Quote No, and NOR IS IT A REASON TO SAY THE BIBLE IS WRONG. That's my point.
I think you might have forgotten that actual evidence has been given that disproves the biblical account on each of these points and that it has been your reply that has appealed to the argument from ignorance. Science does not need that argument to show that the bible is mythology. Science argues from a position of knowledge.Quote Find something that actually contradicts something we absolutely know to be true. Anything.
Answered that question already. Do you not remember?Quote Today, stu, there's a lot of things we can explain. And there's a lot of things we're still working on.
You mean the badly-named ‘discovery institute’ and other charletans are dreaming up wrong conjecture for you to copy and paste.Quote IF PRESENTLY NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING MEANS IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, THEN FOR MOST OF MAN'S HISTORY, NOTHING HAPPENED.
No, you lie loudly to the good people. These are all cases where the evidence is so damning that you would be perverse to deny it. The facts are in direct opposition to the literal world of the bible.Quote What you continue to call a “miracle card” I would call an ignorance card.
OK. So now you know. The ark was a physical impossibility. There is corroborating evidence that the biblical flood never happened as described. That is as good a fact as any we have.Quote You should read “hyperspace.” I think you'd enjoy it. Maybe it would give you some insights into how something normal for someone in another dimension (God) is a miracle for us.
But how is it relevant? None of our disproofs here even deal with your god.Stuart
Quote I think you might have forgotten that actual evidence has been given that disproves the biblical account on each of these points –stu
Sorry, must of missed that somehow. Could you name one of them?
What you have done is explain that we can't explain some things in the Bible, just as science can't explain many things today, just as science couldn't explain many things in the past.
This is vastly different than saying that actual scientific evidence has disproven some Biblical account.
Quote These are all cases where the evidence is so damning that you would be perverse to deny it. The facts are in direct opposition to the literal world of the bible. Please name one.
Quote The ark was a physical impossibility. There is corroborating evidence that the biblical flood never happened as described. You haven't demonstrated that the ark was a physical impossibility. And, you're right, all we have for corroborating evidence are the majority of cultures, tribes, etc on earth having a story that matches most aspects of the flood.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
