|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Noah's Flood
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
WTB edits! Last post should read as follows:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
The Bible refers only to “high hills,” and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting.
Well, at the rate that Everest has been growing since the time of the Flood (.5cm/year), the mountain was only about 3 meters shorter then. So this doesn't help you out much as far as quantity of water, etc....
Or you could posit that the flood was at least 600,000 years old when the last major upthrusting of the Himalayas ended.
Of course, there's no evidence for a Flood back then either.
quote:
In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.
As this is evidence for the standard geologic model as well, you cannot use it as evidence for the flood over other models.
Many apologies.
--------------------
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
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
PJ,
Before we get into some detail re Creation and an Earth around 6000 years old (hence 600,000 years is a non-starter), do you have a problem with the Sole Witness to these events, or do you find His testimony reliable?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
with the amount of space remaining in the Ark (ask me if you want the data)
quote:
Please post it. There are too many animals there as it is.
ByHisBlood hasn't provided the data on this thread, but did provide this link on a different thread and seems to regard it as authoritative. It's based on an incredible underestimate of how many species there are. Or rather, it completely ignores anything that isn't a land-dwelling mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. That is a hell of a lot of animals conveniently ignored.
[ 09. December 2010, 15:51: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Justin
My handle on this board is Justinian. Please do me the courtesy of not getting this wrong.
quote:
He certainly is now, have you read Genesis 3 and Genesis 5 carefully to see what initially happened to those in God's Image and in whose image the following generations were?
The ones directly made in God's image ate a green apple and died. (Well, ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and were thrown out of the garden for disobedience to subsequently die).
quote:
is Genesis 3 the largest blind-spot in literary history?).
I'd go with the Bible, myself.
quote:
And there you have evidence of the greatest problem re Genesis and people reading it today, the humanists have intercepted the reader and the reader come at it with mis-information which makes God's account 'unrealistic' to begin with.
What do you mean "God's account"? That's not the perspective the flood is written from. And pray tell, what misinformation are you talking about? I'm always trying to correct misunderstandings and misinformation I have. But I have no evidence that this is more than just talk from you.
quote:
You must congratulate them, it was indeed money well spent for that doomed kingdom.
Huh? What doomed kingdom?
quote:
Humanistic mission accomplished (for many).
You mean making the universe better for humanity? Because that's the humanistic mission. And the world is better without the good news of the Gospel? That's what you aer saying here.
quote:
Really, well what are you doing here then if there is no God and faith and therefore talk about faith is futile?
ITTWACW?
Seriously, the existance of Faith is independent of the existance of God. If Faith exists then talking about it is both interesting and productive irrespective of whether God exists.
quote:
Before we get into some detail re Creation and an Earth around 6000 years old (hence 600,000 years is a non-starter), do you have a problem with the Sole Witness to these events, or do you find His testimony reliable?
Speaking for myself, I believe that Creation witnessed the events that took place in it. And for the Book of Creation to present a false account then someone must have deliberately been tampering with the Book of Creation deliberately to make it inaccurate. I further believe that the Bible is explicitely the work of many human beings (for that matter the Epistles are explicitely the work of many human beings). I therefore believe that calling the bible "His testimony" is a denial both of the bible and what must unequivocally be the work of the Creator if there is one - the Book of Creation. As such your question is deceptive.
--------------------
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
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Hello Liop,
I would hate you to think that I was ignoring any of the species needing to survive, this is one of many sources that deal with the issues you are are speaking about, please note the links near the end of the article that deal with freshwater fish and other seemingly 'impossible' problems - ARK THE HERALD...
--------------------
"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
Justinian quote:
The ones directly made in God's image ate a green apple and died. (Well, ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and were thrown out of the garden for disobedience to subsequently die).
And what did you learn about their offspring and the image they were made in?
--------------------
"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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
There was no reporter present at creation.
At least not until God created the Sun.
So are we supposed to believe that the events recorded were dictated inerrantly by the Creator?
If so we are back in the dark ages.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Shamwari quote:
So are we supposed to believe that the events recorded were dictated inerrantly by the Creator?
No, neither dictated nor incorrect. The Creator doesn't do mistakes, he leaves that to the created.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Hello Liop,
I would hate you to think that I was ignoring any of the species needing to survive, this is one of many sources that deal with the issues you are are speaking about, please note the links near the end of the article that deal with freshwater fish and other seemingly 'impossible' problems - ARK THE HERALD...
They really really don't. The link that you've gone directly to basically says "Noah wouldn't have had to worry about [long list of] animals that can live in water." Yes, there are a lot of species that live in water. That doesn't mean that you can throw the whole lot into one generic aquatic environment and they'll all be fine. They have different needs with regard to temperature, salinity, pressure, available food and minerals, predators, prey, amount of sunlight and so forth. Anyone who's kept a tank of tropical marine fish knows that you have to be incredibly careful with these things if you want your fish to survive.
The link from that page that is supposed to deal with how different kinds of fish survived doesn't add up either. It basically pulls out a handful of species that can survive in a variety of aquatic environments and says "see? Everything would be fine." A few species can do this. Most wouldn't stand a chance.
I've not seen a link from you which deals with even the vast majority of land-dwelling animals. Forget elephants and lions and those picturesque mammals. Even if we ignore the huge populations of organisms too small to be seen by the naked eye, we have a monumental diversity of creepy crawlies that outnumber everything else. If you took two of every land dwelling species you'd be looking at a huge swarm of beetles, ants, spiders, flies, moths, wasps, etc, that would overwhelm your elephants and lions. Why do illustrations of the Ark never look like that?
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
PJ,
Before we get into some detail re Creation and an Earth around 6000 years old (hence 600,000 years is a non-starter), do you have a problem with the Sole Witness to these events, or do you find His testimony reliable?
God's testimony is indeed reliable. And it is in the world as well as in the word, in God's visible creation, which is clearly far more than a few thousand years old. That is the main reason why young-earth creationism is a non-starter. It makes God out to be a liar, a fraud, a cheat, and the created universe some sort of fake or illusion, a mere stage-set, special effects.
[ 09. December 2010, 16:40: Message edited by: ken ]
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Ken quote:
which is clearly far more than a few thousand years old.
So why do thousands of scientists say otherwise, including this sample of 50 who cover many sciences from A to Z? IN SIX DAYS
From the link - Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, on CNN's Crossfire in November of 1999, said no legitimate scientist in the world believes the Genesis account of creation. So the question was posed, Would any educated, self-respecting scientist with a PhD advocate a literal interpretation of the six days of creation?
It's hard enough to find a theologian who adheres to such a credo. Most Christians will say that they believe the Bible yet balk at its first chapters, claiming that science proves the creation account cannot be considered as fact. Do these people realize that science can neither prove nor disprove evolution any more than it can creation? Certainly there are no human eyewitness accounts of either.
The fact is that a lot of faith is required to believe the theory of evolution, while many scientific facts actually support creation. In Six Days presents fifty scientists worldwide, with recognized earned doctorates in various specialties who give personal testimony to their Christian experiences and belief in the Biblical view of creation as contrasted with evolution. Modern science and philosophy are evaluated from many perspectives. The 50 authors from around the world represent a small sample of the scientists who acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Creator-God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Ken quote:
which is clearly far more than a few thousand years old.
So why do thousands of scientists say otherwise, including this sample of 50 who cover many sciences from A to Z? IN SIX DAYS .....The 50 authors from around the world represent a small sample of the scientists who acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Creator-God.
Because they are bad scientists. They are also bad theologians. Got the Father created the world. His son, the second person of the trinity might have been an agent but was not the creator.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
So we have 50 scientists out of how many scientists around the world? Tens of thousands? So less than .001% of the world's scientists believe in creationism.
That's not very impressive.
Lots of people acknowledge Christ as creator God but don't believe that the opening verses of Genesis are historical. I am one among them.
[ 09. December 2010, 17:50: 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:
The fact is that a lot of faith is required to believe the theory of evolution,
This is an opinion, not a fact. Learning how to tell the difference between these two types of statement would go a great way toward solving the problem of scientific ignorance in the Christian world.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Well let's examine this Leo.....
Leo quote:
Got the Father created the world. His son, the second person of the trinity might have been an agent but was not the creator.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Why would all things be created for an agent?
--------------------
"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
Dan,
quote:
Lots of people acknowledge Christ as creator God but don't believe that the opening verses of Genesis are historical. I am one among them.
Well like the scientists, you seem to like majorities (although you misread the fact that they were a selection of 50 among thousands of others), but they don't always come through, if you doubt that ask those outside the Ark.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
So why do thousands of scientists say otherwise, including this sample of 50 who cover many sciences from A to Z? IN SIX DAYS
I'm going to refer you now to
Project Steve, a list of scientists who agree with the following statement -
quote:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
- and are all called Steve/Stephen/Stephan/Stephanie. The Steve-o-meter currently checks in at 1148 Steves, from across the sciences, including one Stephen Hawking - but if you want to check out their scientific credentials they're all listed on the site.
[ 09. December 2010, 18:47: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Dan,
quote:
Lots of people acknowledge Christ as creator God but don't believe that the opening verses of Genesis are historical. I am one among them.
Well like the scientists, you seem to like majorities (although you misread the fact that they were a selection of 50 among thousands of others), but they don't always come through, if you doubt that ask those outside the Ark.
I'm sure fact-based reasoning is difficult for some but yes, I do like majorities. Of course, this isn't a majority. It's 50 vs. hundreds of thousands. Yet even with the internet and the ease of which people can sign petitions, finding only 50 scientists in the entire world that endorse creationism makes me wonder why the other hundreds of thousands of scientists, including the committed Christians, see things otherwise. I can find 50 scientists who believe that the earth is hollow ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth ) It doesn't it lend it credibility.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Justinian quote:
The ones directly made in God's image ate a green apple and died. (Well, ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and were thrown out of the garden for disobedience to subsequently die).
And what did you learn about their offspring and the image they were made in?
The image of the image of God. With a curse thrown in for good measure. Which still means the image of God - just a slightly less faithful one. And it was the original image that ate of the tree.
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Ken quote:
which is clearly far more than a few thousand years old.
So why do thousands of scientists say otherwise, including this sample of 50 who cover many sciences from A to Z? IN SIX DAYS
Thousands? Source. I've seen lists in the hundreds, certainly (Project Steve is over 1100 scientists named Steve who don't believe in a Young Earth, which should tell you how miniscule those lsits are).
Also there are very few scientists who don't relish the thought of overturning existing scientific belief. It's how you really make your name in science.
quote:
From the link - Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, on CNN's Crossfire in November of 1999, said no legitimate scientist in the world believes the Genesis account of creation.
He seems to have been within a fraction of 1% of the true answer.
quote:
The 50 authors from around the world represent a small sample of the scientists who acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Creator-God.
The Discovery Institute has only 600 names on its list of people who question evolution - and that one's so mealy mouthed I could sign it. I'd therefore say that the 50 authors represent a pretty large sample of scientists who are Young Earth Creationists. (Scientists who are Christians is another matter.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
PJ,
Before we get into some detail re Creation and an Earth around 6000 years old (hence 600,000 years is a non-starter), do you have a problem with the Sole Witness to these events, or do you find His testimony reliable?
Even if we had an objective eye witness account of the events of creation, that wouldn't be the sole witness. There is another witness, whose account is written into the very rocks under our feet. And, it takes a lot less mental gymnastics to understand that account than is needed to believe the novel interpretation that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in six 24h days - at least it doesn't need one to take the Bible and twist it around with selected out-of-context misquotes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Incidentally I had a quick look at the credentials of the scientists in that book. Most don't have their PhDs in anything relating to biology or natural history (to be honest, a mathematician may be a scientist, but why he'd know any more about evolutionary biology than any other generally educated person is beyond me), and of the ones that do, several have them from unaccredited diploma mills. If these guys are the cream of creationist science, the standard is pretty low.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Alan quote:
And, it takes a lot less mental gymnastics to understand that account than is needed to believe the novel interpretation that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in six 24h days
Yes, and experts would have dated the wine in John 2 as 12 minutes old. Doesn't help much does it?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Since we seem to have drifted into a tangent on evolution vs creationism, someone posted this on another site I use. It's pretty strong evidence for, if not out-and-out proof of, evolution. The person giving the lecture in the video says when it was used as evidence in the evolution vs intelligent design trial, the ID-ers had no come-back for this. I'm curious as to what you make of it, ByHisBlood.
youtube link here.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Thanks Nicole,
Most RC's would be theistic evolutionists, even though it's the one of the easiest positions to dismantle, as I have been able to test with some of my TE friends and contacts.
Your 2007 presentation was followed up in 2008 by this article in AiG on the same KENNETH MILLER
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
None of which, in fact, refutes anything that Dr. Miller said. What I'm interested in is if you can come up with any refutation of a piece of evidence which seems pretty damning of your position regarding evolution.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
That's not an answer BHB, have you even bothered to watch the video? What's your response to the fused chromosome #2?
--------------------
“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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Alan quote:
And, it takes a lot less mental gymnastics to understand that account than is needed to believe the novel interpretation that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in six 24h days
Yes, and experts would have dated the wine in John 2 as 12 minutes old. Doesn't help much does it?
But that is exactly the point! If God wanted to make a world that looked 12 minutes old, or 12 centuries, or 12 billion years, God could. The world we are in looks like its hundreds of millions of years old at least. So if it isn't, then God's faking it. I think God is loving, true, and honest. The world looks old. So it probably is.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Exactly, Ken. If the world of the creationists is real, then the God of it is Loki the trickster. I prefer not to believe that of the God who has carried me this far.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Can those of you who want to discuss creationism hop onto one of the creationism threads and leave this one for discussing the Flood?
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
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
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Ken quote:
I think God is loving, true, and honest. The world looks old. So it probably is.
I see, so God must restrict Himself in Creation to only do those things that the limited minds of His creatures can understand! At that wedding, though the servants may not have understood it, Mary said, "whatever He says to you, do it".
Now of course it's too hard for many to accept - whatever He has stated to believe it - because man is so 'wise', he has come so far that the Almighty must fully explain Himself so man's intellect can grant his essential, valued approval ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Luther once said - “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are”.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I'm locking this thread until people read my previous post and decant the creationism elsewhere. Please cut and paste any creationist-related posts you want to reply to from this thread onto one of the creation/evolution related threads and reply there.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
[reopened now - for people to stick to the subject of The Flood]
[ 12. December 2010, 16:48: 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
We've been here before haven't we BHB ?
Who were you then ?
I'm sure it's been said, but just in case, the 'compromise' between wooden literalism and pure materialism, extreme faith positions added to Christianity by most here, is that miraculous events leave no trace and so are perfectly acceptable to those who fully accept the scientific record (but not its self refuting premiss of mandatory materialism) and the miraculous.
It's a third way that says a plague on both your houses really.
Interesting that both these extreme heterodoxies have gnosticism in common.
YECists compound their error by trying to have all three faith positions, which is quite an astounding feat. First comes wooden literalism (errant inerrantism, even more self defeating than materialism) and then comes the attempt to sanitize it by applying science to that imparsimonious faith position.
Oh yeah and then they tack on damnationism which the vast majority of Christians have always believed.
Thrice wrong. Cool.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
You're gonna get the thread locked again, Martin.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ah c'mon PeeJay. That would assume somebody knew what the Hades, Gehenna and Tartaroo I'm on about!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ah c'mon PeeJay. That would assume somebody knew what the Hades, Gehenna and Tartaroo I'm on about!
You've become remarkably clear since your Hell call a while back...*
Maybe you found some flocculant?
*Much appreciated, intentional or not
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hey, you sayin' next I need an enema!? :0)
And of COURSE I knew what a flocculant was without the link.
Excellent metaphor.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm sure it's been said, but just in case, the 'compromise' between wooden literalism and pure materialism, extreme faith positions added to Christianity by most here, is that miraculous events leave no trace and so are perfectly acceptable to those who fully accept the scientific record (but not its self refuting premiss of mandatory materialism) and the miraculous.
The problem is that the 'compromise' such as it is is clear baloney peddled by people who are clearly trying to hold on to what they believe in defiance of the facts.
For instance, it's quite easy to take Whitsun as a miracle with no scientific record. But if you take the Flood then there needs to be two miracles involved. The first being the Flood itself. The second, which is both far greater and more pointless involves erasing all physical evidence about a physical change to the universe such that the universe is entirely consistent with there being no miraculous events and entirely inconsistent with there being miraculous events. There are even the laws of probability to break it.
quote:
It's a third way that says a plague on both your houses really.
Interesting that both these extreme heterodoxies have gnosticism in common.
And that the "Third way" appears utterly indistinguishable from agnosticism. Rather reminiscent of a Third Way by a certain Tony Blair...
quote:
Thrice wrong. Cool.
You need to take a lot of care with so-called Third Ways to ensure that they are not Not Even Wrong. And the Flood is a big case because it is post creation and a massive physical intervention by God. Massive enough to take a second miracle that re-writes the universe to ensure that there isn't any evidence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, there's another miracle needed by God for the Flood to have actually happened as a truly global event that covered all the land surfaces. That is, as we've established, it would be impossible for the Ark to hold a breeding stock of all animals, insects, fish, plants etc... Therefore, God would need to take additional steps to either preserve other creatures from the Flood, or to recreate them after the Flood has subsided. Which rather begs the question of why Noah needed to build a boat to hold a small fraction of animal species when God was going to save the rest of the species anyway ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Yeah I'm not sure what the deal is with the plants anyway. The Ark deals with all the animals (apparently, though as we've seen that's fraught with problems) but there's no explanation as to how we can avoid destroying the world's plants (and then the animals when they have nothing to eat later).
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OK, sea-level rises and falls a mile or three 5000 years ago over a three month period, what geological evidence would there be?
Never mind the biological. If it happened naturally there would be somewhat of an evolutionary choke point.
And why was it a universe changing miracle?
If you're right and God is even more pragmatic than I already believe, as in His putting a cognitively dissonant stamp on the Sabbath in Exodus 20, as if it dated from Eden (another invisible miracle, but orders of magnitude less 'intrusive' then The Flood), which in a sense I'm sure it did, then He is pragmatic to a degree I can't believe.
Pragmatic to the degree that He doesn't care what we believe from the OC/T, and what He believed as a human from the Torah (are what He PRETENDED to believe!). He's quite happy us believing that He is a killer God. Is it a test? For when we've evolved to be nice enough to realise that?
As it makes NO difference to anyone's salvation whether I believe Him at face value or not, does it make a difference to the credibility of Christian witness? Whatever that is? To the ease of apologetics?
The evidence is NOT. No one is convinced by a liberal Zen Zaphod Cheshire God any more than they are convinced by a wooden damnationist one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That is, as we've established, it would be impossible for the Ark to hold a breeding stock of all animals, insects, fish, plants etc... Therefore, God would need to take additional steps to either preserve other creatures from the Flood, or to recreate them after the Flood has subsided.
Perhaps God gave Noah some directions about the design of the Ark which didn't make it into Genesis. It would certainly explain a lot.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
OK, sea-level rises and falls a mile or three 5000 years ago over a three month period, what geological evidence would there be?
Sediment all over the place where you wouldn't expect it. Goodness knows what it would have done to Antarctica and the ice shelf there. Dead animals where there shouldn't be. Seriously screwed up archaeology (I hate to think how China would have worked). Utter chaos for plants.
quote:
Never mind the biological. If it happened naturally there would be somewhat of an evolutionary choke point.
There's one. Far worse for all the drowned plants than even the animals.
quote:
And why was it a universe changing miracle?
Where did the water come from? Where did it go?
quote:
Pragmatic to the degree that He doesn't care what we believe from the OC/T, and what He believed as a human from the Torah (are what He PRETENDED to believe!). He's quite happy us believing that He is a killer God. Is it a test? For when we've evolved to be nice enough to realise that?
Yup. That's about the size of it.
quote:
The evidence is NOT. No one is convinced by a liberal Zen Zaphod Cheshire God any more than they are convinced by a wooden damnationist one.
But the two have very different characteristics and lead to different behaviours in their worshippers.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Well let's examine this Leo.....
Leo quote:
Got the Father created the world. His son, the second person of the trinity might have been an agent but was not the creator.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Why would all things be created for an agent?
The Greek needs unpacking
Eikon is used twenty-three times in the New Testament and two times with tou theo. In Colossians, this passage and subsequent ones mirror the language used about the Roman emperor in a subversive way. Everywhere you looked in Colossae, there would be images of Caesar: in the square, the theatre, the gymnasium, the temples, on coins, jewellery, utensils, clay lamps, stuccoed ceilings, roof tiles, tomb monuments and marble urns. Caesar was lord. Peace and prosperity had come through him.
Horace wrote, “Thine age, O Caesar, has brought back fertile crops to the fields.” The emperor “has wiped away our sins and revived the ancient virtues.” Paul subverts every major claim of the empire. Christ, not Caesar, images the invisible God, holds the cosmos together in peace and brings about the reconciliation of all things.
Gerhard Kittel: All the emphasis is on the equality of the eikon with the original. . . The being of Jesus as image is only another way of talking about His being as the Son
Bruce: To call Christ the image of God is to say that in Him the being and nature of God have been perfectly manifested--that in Him the invisible has become visible.
That everything in the whole created universe was made by the Son was written to rebut the false Gnostic teachers in Colossae who were denying Divinity to the Son and maintaining a chain of angelic mediators between God and the world, the Apostle repeats at the end of the verse that “all things were created by him,” as by their first cause, “and unto him” (εἰς αυτω= eis auto),i.e., for Him, as their final cause and goal.
However some manuscripts read εν = en in place of εἰς – so the world was created IN Christ, not BY Christ. The KJV followed those manuscripts.
The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary: The Gnostics taught that the demiurge was the creator of the earth and of mankind. Yet in verse 16, Paul says that the entire creation, both material and spiritual, was accomplished by God through Christ. This would place Christ, the instrument of creation, second only to God the Father in the spiritual order. Obviously, this teaching contradicted the Gnostic view of the spiritual hierarchy.
John 1 does not say that the Son was the creator but that ‘through him all things were made’
Hebrews 1:2: his Son…….through whom he made the universe. Διὰ commonly expresses secondary agency
[ 13. December 2010, 16:01: Message edited by: leo ]
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Justinian, Alan.
'sah miracle ennit?!
OK, so God's THAT pragmatic. Should I believe that He's I'm-just-this-(Zay)God-you-know ? No Eden, no Flood, no Babel, no S'n'G, no Exodus from the Plagues to Jericho? No heresy of Peor?
Can I have a floating axe-head?
So God as Jesus was meeting the Jews where they were in all of their myths just as He OBVIOUSLY did in the allegory of Lazarus and Dives ?
OKayyyyyyy. I can posit that boat out. Never done that before, but it took me 40 years to realise how pragmatic God was about the Sabbath.
(I've only got the big three objections to materialism left now. Existence, life and mind.)
How does that dictate how I should worship and evangelize ?
What should my sexual morality be ?
This Jesus cove is VERY laid back then. Talk about not quenching a smoking reed. He was probably smoking weed as YHWH let alone in the flesh.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That is, as we've established, it would be impossible for the Ark to hold a breeding stock of all animals, insects, fish, plants etc... Therefore, God would need to take additional steps to either preserve other creatures from the Flood, or to recreate them after the Flood has subsided.
Perhaps God gave Noah some directions about the design of the Ark which didn't make it into Genesis. It would certainly explain a lot.
Has that really been established?
Have you actually realised how huge the ark was?
web page
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Alan quote:
Therefore, God would need to take additional steps to either preserve other creatures from the Flood, or to recreate them after the Flood has subsided. Which rather begs the question of why Noah needed to build a boat to hold a small fraction of animal species when God was going to save the rest of the species anyway
Trying to fit God's ways into your logic again eh, maybe allowing the truth of Isaiah 55:8-9 to sink in for a few minutes may help somewhat?
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Maybe the Ark, as well as being a test of Noah's faith, is also a test of your faith and mine?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How?
--------------------
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
BHB
That cuts both ways. Why are you so sure you know how that text applies in this context? What is wrong with some extraction of the ubiquitous flood legends of the Middle East (based it is extremely likely from geological evidence on some pretty large scale local flooding) being recorded by the editors/compilers of the Pentateuch we have post-Exile?
Most arguments along the alternative lines are based at least in part on the more general premise that "this Book is right, therefore this rock must be wrong". Thus is all honest scientific enquiry set to naught.
But so far as I am aware, the Creation texts tell us that God "spoke" the rock into being as well. So why should it not record faithfully and without any deception, what had happened to it since it was made? In other words, what is wrong with the plain meaning of the rock? Did the rock fall into sin and become a deceiver?
Like the text of scripture, we might have to do a fair bit of hard work to comprehend its plain meaning - but then that is what geologists and the like do. They are not in the business of telling lies about the plain meaning of the rock. Just examining it to see what it reveals. Rocks reveal a lot. If only we can get the rocks out of our heads before we look at them.
--------------------
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
Superb Barnabas. I have argued this, that creation is the Word no less than the word. Spoken no less than the word. Thank you, this is most profound. The creation cannot lie.
This IS opening up for me the pragmatism of God to a nearly frightening degree.
For the first time I am questioning my 'model' that I would not expect even planet scale miracles to have any noticeable affect.
Hmmmm.
I'm still comfortable with my model but see the other as more credible than it is have ever been.
Hmmmm.
Beguiling!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But so far as I am aware, the Creation texts tell us that God "spoke" the rock into being as well. So why should it not record faithfully and without any deception, what had happened to it since it was made? In other words, what is wrong with the plain meaning of the rock? Did the rock fall into sin and become a deceiver?
As I said earlier, we have more than one eye witness for Creation - we don't just have the Genesis account (if, indeed, it is an eye witness account by God) we have the creation itself. The same is true in relation to the Flood. The material universe testifies concerning the proposed Global Flood. The rocks beneath our feet, the genes of the plants and animals that dwell here etc all declare that there was no global innundation and no wiping out of the vast majority of life on earth.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
