|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Noah's Flood
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jamat, Jamat. My apologies. I'm not bipolar. Sad and frightened more than most perhaps. I have been diagnosed as mildly clinically depressed. However I am VERY familiar with cyclothymia and bipolarity in my close family.
I was using it as a figure of speech.
Your compassion moves me very much and reminds me, to say the least, that the differences in our thinking processes are as NOTHING compared to the commonalities in our feelings and our need for transcendent relationship.
God bless you my brother.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
In the process of reading it, we may hear the Spirit of God speaking to us.
In the process of reading what it says, we may hear what he is saying.
Marks on paper do not say anything. We read for comprehension. If there is Divine involvement in the communication, then He must somehow be present in our reading. The words are simply a nexus. A means of connection. If we understand and believe what Jesus is recorded to have said about the Spirit of God in John's gospel, then He is with us and will be in us. He is our counsellor, our guide, while we are reading.
So we read in the presence of a Divine Teacher (who will teach us all things and bring all things to our memory). And so there is another nexus as well. Another connection. Between the Spirit of God and us.
Do we hear Him clearly as we ponder meaning? You know the answer to that. There is static in the communication, caused by our fallibilities, which include ignorance, weakness and fault. How teachable are we? How deaf are we?
If this communication were straightforward with all of us, then we would be in perfect harmony over what the Spirit of God is saying to the church and to ourselves as members. Clearly the communication is not straightforward.
quote:
You are not actually arguing with people so I'd be quite careful, whoever suggested God is a jackass. We have one day to answer for our idle words.
I disagree. I am arguing with people. I am not suggesting that God is a jackass, I am suggesting that all of us can be. In which suggestion, I am greatly comforted by the ancient story in scripture that God can actually speak through an ass.
We all fall into traps of automatic thinking and we parrot phrases. I said it elsewhere. I'm not a parrot, I'm an antiparrot. The distinguishing mark of the protestant Dissenter. The phrase "The Bible Says" is at best shorthand, at worst quite misleading. It may blind us to what is going on.
There remains the question "why this book"? A good question, but this post is long enough.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
BHB
Do you know the etymology and provenance, origin of the word 'atom'?
No, neither does the compiler of that infantile list.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
I would have thought that a Hawk would have seen further than the English text?
What an odd remark. I assume this is directed at me but I have no idea what you're referring to. Is this in some way an attempt at replying to my earlier post? If so could you elaborate?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
In the process of reading it, we may hear the Spirit of God speaking to us.
In the process of reading what it says, we may hear what he is saying.
David wrote Ps 29 certainly. If he wrote under the annointing of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed himself through these words. God both caused and witnessed the flood. He says so.
He may say so. But not there. There it is David speaking. And at most, David is only a witness. Once again you seek to put the Bible rather than God on the pedestal to be worshipped.
quote:
You are not actually arguing with people so I'd be quite careful, whoever suggested God is a jackass. We have one day to answer for our idle words.
If God is worthy of worship then God is a God of Truth. Not the Prince of Lies the contradictions between your reading of the Bible and the very rocks of Creation make him out to be. If God is the Deceiver then what role does that leave for the Adversary? Teacher? Enlightener? Truth-teller?
I do my best to stand with the Light of Truth and against the Deceiver. If those words are held against me I hope it will be because of how far short of the ideal I fall. And if they are not, eternally worshipping the Deceiver would be hell anyway. Or I'd need my discernment to be removed.
Likewise if having to "answer for our idle words" has the risk of burning eternally in Hell. The Creator of a system involving Eternal Torment is either evil or fucked up badly. Hitler himself doesn't deserve eternal torment. And if God really is choosing to send people into eternal torment then Heaven is no true heaven as others are suffering. The only being that deserves eternal torment is one who willingly sends others there - and the mark of a system being good is that it is forgiving. If petty words would have me sent to Hell then God is a petty tyrant and not worthy of worship. (He may be able to claim it through fear or through deceit but he is not worthy of it).
I do my best (and too often fail) to stand on the side of compassion, of forgiveness, and of nurturing. And I try to return good for evil. If God returns endless evil (as Hell is) for finite evil let alone the petty evil of words then God is endlessly evil - and I hope to be able to one day spit in his eye although I am not sure I have quite that much courage. Of course, if God isn't that petty or that evil, this isn't an issue. If he is, to even enter his Heaven I'd need my compassion surgically removed.
And if it's a choice between the Deceiver and the one who believes Eternal Torment is just, the most important question becomes whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Powers, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep no more – and by a sleep to say we end.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
I would have thought that a Hawk would have seen further than the English text?
What an odd remark. I assume this is directed at me but I have no idea what you're referring to. Is this in some way an attempt at replying to my earlier post? If so could you elaborate?
As near as I can tell BHB seems to be implying that the Hebrew word commonly translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is better translated as "sphere", but doesn't want to come right out and say so, much less explain why this is so. Of course, this is not the case and Isaiah seems to mean "circle, the two-dimensional figure" rather than "sphere, the three-dimensional object" given his use of the same root word elsewhere. This is fairly standard creationist practice, since they typically maintain that believing correctly is more important than the actual search for truth.
BTW, the infamous list contained one of my pet peeves as well by deliberately conflating "invisible" and "microscopic". These are not the same thing.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Jamat-
So are you arguing that true science supports your Flood theory, or are you arguing that science is irrelevant? You seem to be doing the former until your evidence is refuted by the actual scientists, then falling back, saying "don't blind me with science" and claiming that faith in the literal truth of scripture trumps mere evidence anyway. Then if people take that on theologically, you start proposing quasi-scientific theories about trees turning into coal in 5000 years, etc.
You can't have it both ways.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Barnabas. You raised the possibility of creation becoming a lie, as it were, in the fall. How could it?
I thought I made it clear that this view of a "Cosmic Fall" was not one I held, just one I had heard argued.
Happy to confirm that I do not support the view.
I also don't support that view, although it seems to be very common in some traditions. The argument goes that the Fall affected all of creation, for all of time. The very fabric of the universe became distorted and enslaved to the Deceiver. Therefore, the 'witness of the rocks' is deceiptful and the evidence for an old earth (radiometric dating etc) is there to deliberately deceive us and lead us away from the Truth in Scripture. I have heard people use that argument in one breath, and then immediately launch into a tirade of how all the sedimentary rocks, or fossil fish on Mt Everest, show that there was a global flood. Apparently they don't see the probem with their logic.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Alan, I think the Cosmic Fall might be worth a bit of an unpack in this tangent to the main theme of the thread. Not intended as comprehensive, but here are a few thoughts I have had about the notion.
I came across the idea in C S Lewis's first book (the Pilgrim's Regress), but cannot quite remember whether it was something he himself believed or something which he attributed to a particular kind of church view or philosophical view he was criticising! (He says the book is needlessly obscure).
In scripture, we do find these twin notions that somehow creation does demonstrate the glory of God. Even though it has no speech, it is a witness which pours out words (Psalm 19). And the demonstration is clear (Romans 1).
But creation somehow groans, is somehow burdened, by the state of human beings, and cannot wait to see that lifted (Romans 8). Creation waits "on tiptoe" as the children's hymn puts it. The images are poetic of course; inanimate objects in creation are not of themselves sentient and have no speech, so they cannot literally groan.
Personally, I've found any arguments from scripture in favour of the Cosmic Fall to be unconvincing. The beautiful imagery in the Psalms and the reflections in Romans seem to add up to a view that the natural created order is a reliable witness to fallible human beings of the power of God in its creation. Our fallibility is a caution of course. We can and do misread anything either through ignorance or our own purposes.
Theologically, the notion that the forces of darkness can muck about with the created order and do some creating of deceitful evidence on their own seems to fly in the face of the understanding that the devil can destroy or deceive, but he cannot create. I think the old divines came up with that one because they believed that the dualisms found in Manichaeism and Gnosticism were against Christian truth. I think they were wise in that.
Scientific enquiry is at its best a humble process. At its heart it recognises the fallibility of the observer and analyst. That seems entirely consistent with the guidance of our faith on how best to live.
All of these things stack up for me. Cosmic Fall seems to include a means of special pleading, so that the profound signs which can be read in the created order can be argued away.
And I agree with you entirely about the incoherencies. Any view which would argue that the evidence of the created order must be treated with deep suspicion as possibly deceptive, then uses that evidence in such a way as to accept it, is incoherent. Such apologetics seem to be heading in opposite directions at the same time.
A long way away from Noah's flood, I suppose, but it entirely endorses your succinct earlier argument of the myriad witness against the notion of a Global Flood to be found in the things which are made. Creation is a reliable witness examined by unreliable enquirers. A high view of scripture says pretty much the same about scripture, despite the fallibilities of its human authors and editors.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Tim quote:
Then if people take that on theologically, you start proposing quasi-scientific theories about trees turning into coal in 5000 years, etc.
Well all THESE were made in the last 5000 years.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
From your keyboard to my last post's penultimate paragraph, BHB.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
I would have thought that a Hawk would have seen further than the English text?
What an odd remark. I assume this is directed at me but I have no idea what you're referring to. Is this in some way an attempt at replying to my earlier post? If so could you elaborate?
As near as I can tell BHB seems to be implying that the Hebrew word commonly translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is better translated as "sphere", but doesn't want to come right out and say so, much less explain why this is so
I wondered if that was his point but if that is the case (and we can only speculate since BHB refuses to actually engage in conversation and defend his beliefs) then that would definitely surprise me from what else I’ve read of his inerrantist POV. Since ALL of the English translations I’ve seen translate the word as ‘circle’, (including the usual suspect for fundies – the KJV) then if their translation is wrong or deceptive, then that means their work of translation hasn’t been divinely protected against error by the ‘Author’ – human error has crept in and suddenly reading the Bible becomes a matter of critical interpretation, rather than plain, simple Truth. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Tim quote:
Then if people take that on theologically, you start proposing quasi-scientific theories about trees turning into coal in 5000 years, etc.
Well all THESE were made in the last 5000 years.
Hilarious. I've seen these trotted out by YECies before as 'proof'. I think there's a 'Ripley's' character in America that keeps a sort of creationist folk-museum of this stuff and keeps making wild, unverified claims on the internet that filters through to sites like this. When the objects are investigated by people with an understanding of geological processes, it's suddenly seen that there's no documented evidence for where the object was found, none have been documented in situ so the claims about how old/which strata of rock the object was found in cannot be scientifically verified. And alterntive explanations for how the rock accrued around the object are far more plausible considering everything we know about the formation of coal and rock. This site is pretty good at arguing against all these so-called 'out-of-place' artifacts. This is a link to their page dealing with the 1912 finding of the iron pot in coal.
In regards to any object found encased in coal they explain:
quote:
If a man-made object falls into such a sediment-laden slurry, the sediment will often consolidate around it. Over a period of years this sediment can dry and harden considerably, forming a concretion like structure resembling a piece of the original formation. … Mineralization is common in the coal and surrounding debris of coal mines because rainwater reacts with the newly exposed minerals and produces highly mineralized solutions. Coal, sediments, and rocks are commonly cemented together in just a few years. It could easily appear that a pot cemented in such a concretion could appear superficially as if it were encased in the original coal…Thus, a person who broke open such a nodule might mistakenly conclude that it was part of the host formation, rather than a secondary product of the mining environment. This phenomena has been documented with objects as modern as soda bottles and World War II artifacts, and thus cannot be used as anti-evolutionary evidence.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Well worked out, and if the Bible had been originally recorded English we would have something to gripe about. It wasn't, we don't.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Hawk,
Holding together the evolution faith from an increasingly large list of contradictry evidences must be quite a task but nothing new; only 10% of the evidence presented 85 years ago still remains as a possibility!
Another material is mentioned in this next article:
The London Times in 1851 reported that Hiram DeWitt, of Springfield, Mass, brought a piece of California. When the stone was accidentally dropped it split open and inside was a cut-iron six-penny nail. The nail was described as perfectly straight and with its head still intact.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Mobile phone joys, let's try the start of that again:-
The London Times in 1851 reported that Hiram DeWitt, of Springfield, Mass, brought a piece of quartz home from a trip to California.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Hawk,
Holding together the evolution faith from an increasingly large list of contradictry evidences must be quite a task but nothing new; only 10% of the evidence presented 85 years ago still remains as a possibility!
Whatever that means. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
But it's not that much of a task to refute obvious BS, thanks. It's pretty easy and quite enjoyable.
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Another material is mentioned in this next article:
The London Times in 1851 reported...
Yes BHB, and in 1986 the Sun reported that "Freddie Starr ate my hamster". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Editorial integrity to print the truth is hardly reliable these days, let alone in the nineteenth century when crackpots, fraudsters and the credulous could write anything they liked.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Alan, Barnabas, Hawk, Croesos: I'm looking for my thinking to be tested.
For the first time in my life I've come to the point of positing that The Flood in particular may be purely allegorical. At the very best based on some local catastrophe where Ararat can't mean Ararat.
Not a miracle that would HAVE to be covered up by God.
So, I'm left with much LESSER miracles: Eden, Babel, S&G, The Exodus that would NOT have to be covered up.
Or would they ?
All miracles explicitly accepted by God incarnate.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Hawk quote:
in the nineteenth century when crackpots, fraudsters and the credulous could write anything they liked.
Really? Well it seems now they have access to the internet and religious-style websites ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Really? Well it seems now they have access to the internet and religious-style websites.
They do, they most certainly do!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Holding together the evolution faith from an increasingly large list of contradictry [sic] evidences must be quite a task...
Same can be said for the creationist faith. How do you do that?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Tou,
We just stick to what God said, it's an odd approach but strangely never needs revision!
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I already do that, yet believe that evolution is the best description of how God created plants, animals and humans.
Genesis 1 and 2 and the flood narrative are beautiful poetic stories that valid convey theological truths rather than historical/factual truth.
So I also believe what God said, just like you do. The difference between you and I is that I believe these passages used a different genre of literature than you do in order to convey what God said.
You haven't convinced me (or the vast, vast majority of the world's Christians) that your choice of genre is more valid than mine. Instead you have to ignore a lot of scientific data and logic that contradicts your choice of genre. Fortunately for me, I don't have to do that.
You assume that truth is only (or more) true if it factual/historical. I accept that God used many different genres to transmit his truth. In this case the observations don't fit with a historical account, so God used a non-literal way to transmit His truth.
[ 15. December 2010, 17:29: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
We just stick to what God said, it's an odd approach but strangely never needs revision!
Well, actually, you stick to what YOU SAY God said, based on your interpretation of the Scriptures. As do we all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Alan, Barnabas, Hawk, Croesos: I'm looking for my thinking to be tested.
Martin, this is a flying visit - out for most of the day, in briefly for tea, then out again.
I'll PM you when I get back.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Hold on here - we're drifting back towards evolution again, despite previous hostly action.
There are other threads dealing with this subject - let's stick to the Flood on this thread!
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jamat, Jamat. My apologies. I'm not bipolar. Sad and frightened more than most perhaps. I have been diagnosed as mildly clinically depressed. However I am VERY familiar with cyclothymia and bipolarity in my close family.
I was using it as a figure of speech.
Your compassion moves me very much and reminds me, to say the least, that the differences in our thinking processes are as NOTHING compared to the commonalities in our feelings and our need for transcendent relationship.
God bless you my brother.
And you ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
TonyK
That was bothering me, too (one of the reasons for responding PM-wise to Martin). Sorry for my part in the drift - 'twas not easy to avoid.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Alan, Barnabas, Hawk, Croesos: I'm looking for my thinking to be tested.
For the first time in my life I've come to the point of positing that The Flood in particular may be purely allegorical. At the very best based on some local catastrophe where Ararat can't mean Ararat.
Not a miracle that would HAVE to be covered up by God.
So, I'm left with much LESSER miracles: Eden, Babel, S&G, The Exodus that would NOT have to be covered up.
Or would they ?
All miracles explicitly accepted by God incarnate.
I think part of the answer is going to relate to what is meant by 'miracle'. For one family to receive a warning about an impending flood (locally catastrophic, but not global) and be able to make preparations to survive that flood, along with some of their livestock, could quite reasonably be called a miracle - and I'm sure Noah and his folks would agree. All without anything happening that wasn't explicable by scientific enquiry (except, possibly, the advanced warning). The boat could even have come to rest in the vicinity of Ararat, I don't think there's any need to assume that the story in Genesis requires the Ark to have come to rest on or near the summit of Mount Ararat, just a hill in that range.
In response to the more general question that doesn't relate specifically to the Flood, maybe we need a thread in Purgatory on miracles.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seonaid
Shipmate
# 16031
|
Posted
I think BHB must have missed my previous request for reputable evidence, so I will request it again ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Please provide the evidence for the allegations you make about the dating methods, and please use reputable sites, not ones like answers in genesis or such ilk.
Posts: 195 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Seo,
You'll have those asap, maybe after the Christmas rush, so enjoy a wee dram in the meantime!
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seonaid
Shipmate
# 16031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Seo,
You'll have those asap, maybe after the Christmas rush, so enjoy a wee dram in the meantime!
Translated as I actually can't answer your question because no such sites exist!!!
[ 16. December 2010, 17:51: Message edited by: Seonaid ]
Posts: 195 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seonaid
Shipmate
# 16031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Seo,
The name is SEONAID!!!
Posts: 195 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
SEONAID
Here are a few (with references) for you to savage in the meantime:-
As The Science of Evolution explains: "Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'" (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).
The potassium-argon [K-Ar] dating method, used to date lava flows, also has problems—as shown by studies of Mount St. Helens. "The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar 'age' of 0.35 + OR - 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from this same dacite give K-Ar 'ages' from 0.35 + OR - .06 Ma to 2.8 + OR - 0.6 Ma. These 'ages' are, of course, preposterous [since we know the rock formed recently]. The fundamental dating assumption ('no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed') is questioned by these data.
"Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant 'excess argon' was present when the lava solidified in 1986 . . . This study of Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar 'ages' from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?" (Stephen Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 335-344).
In layman's terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were "scientifically" dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily. GN (Good News).
Snow even here in Cardiff today (dated at 3.45 hours and one layer, so will reply as much as able). Take care people ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
TonyK, Louise
A question. Would you prefer this subtopic to go to one of the alternative threads e.g Does Creation Science give comfort to the Enemy? I've found a neat link for Seonaid and others to consider but it's likely to provoke more discussion. I've plonked it in the Creation Science thread pro-tem.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
"Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant 'excess argon' was present when the lava solidified in 1986 . . . This study of Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar 'ages' from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?" (Stephen Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 335-344).
In layman's terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were "scientifically" dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily. GN (Good News).
Such examples rather serve to illustrate just how biased these 'journals' are. K-Ar dating should not be used on 20 year old samples. Even Wikipedia provides more valid information than your example.
quote:
As the simulation of the processing of potassium-argon samples showed, the standard deviations for K-Ar dates are so large that resolution higher than about a million years is almost impossible to achieve. By comparison, radiocarbon dates seem almost as precise as a cesium clock! Potassium-argon dating is accurate from 4.3 billion years (the age of the Earth) to about 100,000 years before the present. At 100,000 years, only 0.0053% of the potassium-40 in a rock would have decayed to argon-40, pushing the limits of present detection devices. Eventually, potassium-argon dating may be able to provide dates as recent as 20,000 years before present
See here.
Do you have any other less easily refuted pieces of 'evidence'?
[ 17. December 2010, 09:02: Message edited by: pjkirk ]
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Link doesn't work for me, pj.
I found another and stuck it on the Creation Science DH thread, for thread demarcation reasons. It might say similar things to the one of yours I can't read!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Link doesn't work for me, pj.
I found another and stuck it on the Creation Science DH thread, for thread demarcation reasons. It might say similar things to the one of yours I can't read!
Gah! The 'L' at the end of the URL got stripped somehow.
Yours is wildly more detailed, and dedicated to the specific 'test.' Mine's from a course page for a Univ. of California archaeology class, just talking about the method in general.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seonaid
Shipmate
# 16031
|
Posted
BHB, I asked for facts, not fairytales. I also asked for reputable evidence - anything with creation in the title is NOT reputable!!!
Posts: 195 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Got it, pjkirk. And here it is.
(With apologies to DH Hosts if this is in the wrong thread).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
In layman's terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were "scientifically" dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily. GN (Good News).
Others have already pointed out the flaws in the claims of 'Good News', whoever they are. (NB. please link to your sources rather than just mentioning who they are - otherwise we can't see the context and we have no idea how reputable the source is unless we see where you've pulled it from). But I thought I'd also mention that this is a very unconvincing attempt to disparage the dating methods.
KR-AR dating is already well known by scientists to have problems with potentially flawed results and so necessitates the strictest methods of sample collection preconditions to ensure the results are viable. Even Wikipedia gives this information with a long list of preconditions that NEED to be observed for any reputable scientist to publish the results as evidence for the age of a site.
For this creationist to purposely fail to meet these preconditions and then claim the results are wrong is not proof of anything except what scientists are already aware of. The test results are just test results, they need to be added to the context and scientific interpretation before you can even start making wild generalisations that 'Science says x, x is wrong, therefore Science is wrong!!!'.
I love how creationists like to point out the difficulties in the dating methods as though they've uncovered some conspiracy, while scientists are all well aware of these difficulties, and are totally open about them, and have long since accomodated for them in their results. Science is incredibly critically self-aware. That's the foundation I think of what most creationists misunderstand. They imagine a conspiracy of silence and no scientists daring to disturb the party-line status quo - which is about as far from the truth as its possible to get!
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
I love how creationists like to point out the difficulties in the dating methods as though they've uncovered some conspiracy, while scientists are all well aware of these difficulties, and are totally open about them, and have long since accomodated for them in their results. Science is incredibly critically self-aware. That's the foundation I think of what most creationists misunderstand. They imagine a conspiracy of silence and no scientists daring to disturb the party-line status quo - which is about as far from the truth as its possible to get!
And I love how they believe that pointing out these things somehow makes creationism more credible.
Even if you could definitively prove that evolution is false, it doesn't make creationism more true. Believing it does, shows a lapse in rational thinking.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
TonyK, Louise
A question. Would you prefer this subtopic to go to one of the alternative threads e.g Does Creation Science give comfort to the Enemy? I've found a neat link for Seonaid and others to consider but it's likely to provoke more discussion. I've plonked it in the Creation Science thread pro-tem.
The trouble is any discussion of the Flood gets into the old lies about "Flood Geology", and that gets into the age of the Earth - which is of course the one thing that YEC needs to fudge. So you can't keep the arguments separate. There is no way to talk about the Flood in this context without also talking about YEC.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Wrong topic. I'll take it to the other thread
[ 17. December 2010, 13:53: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
TonyK, Louise
A question. Would you prefer this subtopic to go to one of the alternative threads e.g Does Creation Science give comfort to the Enemy? I've found a neat link for Seonaid and others to consider but it's likely to provoke more discussion. I've plonked it in the Creation Science thread pro-tem.
The trouble is any discussion of the Flood gets into the old lies about "Flood Geology", and that gets into the age of the Earth - which is of course the one thing that YEC needs to fudge. So you can't keep the arguments separate. There is no way to talk about the Flood in this context without also talking about YEC.
Inclined to agree, ken, but there is already a ruling and I was just trying to clarify it in this case.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
As The Science of Evolution explains: "Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'" (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).
I know very little about geological dating methods but even I am aware that 33 years can be a long time in science. Even if the information in that quotation was accurate in 1977, it may no longer be so now.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
As it keeps coming up, I've opened a thread on the scientific dating methods which get discussed. Please take arguments which rely on arguing for or against dating methods being reliable to there.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
[ 17. December 2010, 19:37: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well BHB, did we know each other in the WCG ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Ha! l forgot we already had a massive thread on the Flood for those who like that sort of thing.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Good News is from an Armstrongite heresy reactionary cultlet of my former redeemed cultic fellowship.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
