The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Forward velocity? Are you saying the Ark was meant to do other than float?

The Ark as described in the Bible can't do anything other than float, that is the problem. The Koreans ignore high speed forward velocity that another Creationist paper predict would be present in a Earth covered by water. They assume, incorrectly, that the Ark would just have to "float"

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to the very interesting article by Baumgardner and Barnette, do you think they developed this piece on Noah's Flood and forgot he was out on it in his Ark?

They didn't concern themselves with the Ark, they attempted to model fluid dynamics of a planetary body completely covered in water in an attempt to explain the erosion patterns on Earth. They found that on a planetary body completely covered in water high speed currents of water would be present, and they use this (rather unconvincingly) to explain erosion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Would a world covered in water be subject to violent storms? Is it not the difference in temperature between landmass and seas that generate storms? (That's not rhetorical - I am interested in finding out).

Yes, but this paper isn't describing "storms" it is describing ocean currents.

So the ark didn't face storms, just high-speed currents. Tell me, a ship on a high-speed current, what high speed forward velocity would it encounter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Do the currents they refer to cover all latitudes? I gathered not. Are they surface currents? I gathered not.

Did you read the paper at all?

Yes, I did. Just wasn't sure if they meant the current that gouged the drowned landmass carried all the way to the surface.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Does non-creation individual scientific research not invalidate other individual research? Are they all complimentary?

Certainly, but then scientists change their theories.

What Creationists should be saying is that the evidence and models suggest that the Ark story as described literally in the Bible most likely didn't happen.

But if their research shows it might well have happened, why would they deny it?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is what an "honest" reading of the Bible indicates, is it not?

The idea of that the word "kind" is actually some unknown biological classification is a modern invention of Creationists.

Every kind of clean and unclean animal means just that, every kind. The idea that a "kind" is actually a biological grouping much wider than something like species, is utterly ridiculous and gross distortion of the meaning of the original text (never mind completely unsupported by biology, not that you guys seem to bothered about that)

Its funny how Creationists like to go on about honesty of interpretation, until they run into a little problem themselves. :rolleyes:

Yes, 'kind' could mean every species we find today, plus all extinct ones. Or it could mean a group that breeds together. The latter is more likely from the use of it in the Creation account in:
Genesis 1:20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The emphasis is on the kinds breeding each according to its kind. Now if kind means each sort of finch, for example, then Noah had a problem. But if it referred to something from which many species devolved, then the ark was viable.

BTW, you don't think horse and zebras are any more related than horses and lions? You think that all species are unrelated???

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They are entitled to their opinion - but the quality of their judgement is indicated by comparing it to (1) the historic view of the Church, (2) the view of scholars of the Biblical languages and (3) any commonsense reading of the Biblical account.

The historic view of the Church also was that the Catholic Church was the authority of God on Earth. A concept you don't put much weight in I imagine.

No, that was only the view of the Catholic Church. (My, you do carry some baggage with you, )

Also the view of scholars of Biblical languages is not universal in your interpretation.

Correct. Some try to make a case in favour of Theistic Evolution - but I think we can claim both Conservative and Liberal in favour of the literal position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
An honest handling of the Bible will lead one to conclude it teaches a 6 Day Creation about 6000 years ago, and a global Flood c.2300BC.

Give that you have no way of judging that, even if it is true, it is a bit silly to make such statements.

As I said, conservative and liberal scholars concur - and they are at opposite ends of the theological spectrum. But I'm open to correction: if you can show me where most conservative or liberal scholars think Genesis was not meant to be read as teaching a 6 Day, 6000 year ago Creation, please let me know.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if it referred to something from which many species devolved, then the ark was viable.

You have answered you own question.

Look at you text again.

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind

There is no "from which many species devolved". That is again a modern distortion of the text by Creationists who realised that they had problems with literal interpretation.

The Bible is saying that God create ALL species of birds and fish, (and presumably wild animals), in creation week. To say that the text leaves open the idea that God merely created higher templates from which various new types of animals could emerge is going against the text. New types of animals didn't appear later on through "devolution", that is never mentioned in the text and goes against the meaning of these passages.

You can pervert the meaning of the text all you like to get the answer you want, but please don't hark on about how you are "true" to the original meaning.

If you want to be true to the original meaning and take it literally then you need to figure out a way to get every species of land animal on the Ark, because this modern invention of "kinds" from with new animals devolved is unsupported by Biblical text and goes against the clear meanings of these passages.

And giving out about Christians who are actually true to the actual meaning of the text (and therefore have determined it cannot be literal) is a bit rich.

wolfsbane

MooseJam wrote: »

sure lots of insects would have flown in and have been on animals, but they would just be a few insects local to the arc, insects live all over the world don't you know, what would happen to those ?

Depends on how much of the earth was populated by kinds that no longer existed near the ark. Mankind had spread out from Eden some 1700 years previously, and there is no reason to think any kind of creature had become isolated far from Noah. In any event, some 120 years passed from God's sentence of death on the world until Noah finished the ark and the Flood came. Plenty of time for all kinds to gather.

Soul Winner

bonkey wrote: »

The article that was in the post immediately after mine should explain it.

Should it? All it says is that: "The age of its genetic material was recently calculated using carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida." What genetic material are they referring to? If it's still alive then how can they know how old it is by using carbon dating? Doesn't carbon dating require the thing to have been dead for while? But this tree is still alive. Please don't point me to the article again, just explain it in your own words please. I'm not saying it's not 10,000 years old, I just want how they carbon dated it, explained a little better. Thanks.

wolfsbane

Minder wrote: »

I don't remember mentioning creationists in that post...

I'm sorry then. I took it you were referring to the creationist interpretation when you outlined the ark scenario. Whose interpretation was it then?

wolfsbane

I'm sorry to have taken up so many posts - and I may have missed some.

If it is any help, here's a site that deals with many Noah's Flood questions:
Noah’s Flood Questions and Answers
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000

MooseJam

why don't creationists build a replica ark, if it floats it would put an end to so many objections

Hot Dog

The flood may have happened, but do you have any evidence that it actually did?

Scientifically, we have a geological record that can be interpreted in that manner. Historically, again we have the record given in the Bible.

This is just plain wrong. There is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood. None. This is my area of expertise, I suspect I might know more of this than you do. But that has never stopped you before.

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote: »

why don't creationists build a replica ark, if it floats it would put an end to so many objections

Hmm. Wouldn't we have to see whether it floated under Flood conditions? Floating on a calm lake would hardly give the same kind of test as floating while the continents were rearranged, the heavens burst, and the fountains of the deep were broken open.

Rather more to the point, the Ark was God's chosen vehicle to allow Noah to survive a divinely mandated worldwide flood - not an easy situation to replicate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was asking what starting point had Big Bangers - if they start with the Big Bang, then that is indeed falsifiable. If they speculate what was before that, then they are no longer scientists I take it? Just as Creationists who speak of God creating disqualify themselves?

But if the Creationist starts his science with a mature, 6000 year old universe, then it is falsifiable - an unambigious geological record of evolution, a reliable dating method, a geological record that accounts for known rates of population growth, etc.

Why aren't creationists battering away to disprove it? Problably for the same reasons evolutionists aren't battering away to disprove evolution - they are sure it is true. Unlike the Big Bang, neither evolution nor a mature creation are questioned by their adherents.

That's the kind of unfounded claim that is particularly irritating in this debate. The journals are full of papers that investigate aspects or implications of evolution, cosmological theory, established geology - if that was not the case, and current theories had to pass unchallenged, then science would simply have ground to a halt.

Every time a graduate student undertakes a thesis on evolution, it's an attack on the established theory. Virtually every paper published in genetics, zoology, botany, ecology, and other fields, can only reach its conclusions if the scientific theories behind them are correct - and those conclusions are measured against real world evidence. That is what science is - constant destruct testing of theory.

Theories that do not stand up in the face of this remorseless assault are abandoned. A decent amount of the science I learned at school has been found to be false, and thrown away.

What I learned at school about Creationism, on the other hand, remains exactly the same.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soul Winner

Taken from the Geoscience Research Institute Website:

FLOOD STORIES — CAN THEY BE IGNORED?

Ariel A. Roth
Origins 17(2):51-55 (1990)

EDITORIAL

One of the objections voiced against geologists who believe a flood to be a major geologic event of the past (flood geologists) is that they often begin with the proposition that the biblical account of the flood is true and then attempt to fit the scientific data into that given model. It is sometimes further implied that religious commitment and bias is the basis for selection of data to fit the concept; hence, one is not dealing with a fair and open system of inquiry. While there is bias and commitment in all broad areas of inquiry, in this case one needs not turn to the Bible or religion to find support for flood geology. The idea of a dreadful flood, sometimes called the deluge, is remarkably entrenched in non-biblical sources. Such sources serve as an independent basis for evaluating such an event.

The most important extrabiblical flood account is found in the Gilgamesh Epic, the outstanding literary work from ancient Babylon. It was discovered during archaeological evacuation at Nineveh in the famous library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. which dates from about the 7th century B.C. The epic is written on 12 tablets in cuneiform (wedge shaped) script of the semitic Akkadian language. The hero of the story, Gilgamesh, is in search of eternal life and strongly protests against death. He seeks out Utnapishtim who has been granted eternal life because he saved animal and human life at the time of the great flood.1 The flood account, which is reported on tablet No. 11, is remarkably similar to the biblical account given in Genesis.

There is general agreement among scholars that the two accounts are related because of close similarities. For instance, in both accounts: a) the flood is brought on because of evil on earth; b) the flood is divinely planned; c) the hero is instructed to build an ark for the preservation of mankind and animals; d) a select group of mankind, animals, and provisions are taken into the ark; e) the event is universal;2 f) after the flood subsides the hero releases a raven and a dove (the Babylonian account also has a swallow; however, in a different sequence) to test the dryness of the land; g) at the flood's end a sacrifice offered to deity is well accepted.

The ancient Greeks also had the concept of a deluge.3 Their flood hero, Deucalion, was advised by his father to construct an ark because the god Zeus wished to destroy mankind. Deucalion and his wife entered the ark after stocking it with provisions. Zeus caused such a great rain that in nine days it washed down the greater part of Greece. Most men perished, except a few who fled to high mountains. Deucalion also survived in his ark. There were other Greek stories of a deluge. Some scholars distinguished three such events, although the one associated with Deucalion is the most famous.4

The Aztecs of Central America also had the concept of one or several deluges. These flood concepts antedate the sixteenth-century advent of missionaries, who brought the flood story from the Bible. The Aztec legend of beginnings5 includes an original earth which was destroyed by a great flood caused by the rain god Tlaloc. One account indicates that after the creation of the world there was a period of 1716 years before its destruction by flood and lightning.6 Severe earthquakes followed. Tlazolteolt is "the woman who sinned before the deluge", while the flood heroes Nata and Nena escaped the ravages by building themselves a ship. Others escaped by taking refuge in caverns or mountaintops. The threat of subsequent deluges was taken very seriously, and the Aztecs are reported to have sacrificed large numbers of children to the rain god Tlaloc as appeasement.


Read more here


What do the geologists here think of 'Immanuel Velikovsky'?

Hot Dog

Immanuel Velikovsky had a lot of wacky ideas. Some were clever though. Makes for entertaining reading.

FLOOD STORIES — CAN THEY BE IGNORED?

Ariel A. Roth
Origins 17(2):51-55 (1990)

EDITORIAL

One of the objections voiced against geologists who believe a flood to be a major geologic event of the past (flood geologists) is that they often begin with the proposition that the biblical account of the flood is true and then attempt to fit the scientific data into that given model. It is sometimes further implied that religious commitment and bias is the basis for selection of data to fit the concept; hence, one is not dealing with a fair and open system of inquiry. While there is bias and commitment in all broad areas of inquiry, in this case one needs not turn to the Bible or religion to find support for flood geology. The idea of a dreadful flood, sometimes called the deluge, is remarkably entrenched in non-biblical sources. Such sources serve as an independent basis for evaluating such an event.

The most important extrabiblical flood account is found in the Gilgamesh Epic, the outstanding literary work from ancient Babylon. It was discovered during archaeological evacuation at Nineveh in the famous library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. which dates from about the 7th century B.C. The epic is written on 12 tablets in cuneiform (wedge shaped) script of the semitic Akkadian language. The hero of the story, Gilgamesh, is in search of eternal life and strongly protests against death. He seeks out Utnapishtim who has been granted eternal life because he saved animal and human life at the time of the great flood.1 The flood account, which is reported on tablet No. 11, is remarkably similar to the biblical account given in Genesis.

There is general agreement among scholars that the two accounts are related because of close similarities. For instance, in both accounts: a) the flood is brought on because of evil on earth; b) the flood is divinely planned; c) the hero is instructed to build an ark for the preservation of mankind and animals; d) a select group of mankind, animals, and provisions are taken into the ark; e) the event is universal;2 f) after the flood subsides the hero releases a raven and a dove (the Babylonian account also has a swallow; however, in a different sequence) to test the dryness of the land; g) at the flood's end a sacrifice offered to deity is well accepted.

The ancient Greeks also had the concept of a deluge.3 Their flood hero, Deucalion, was advised by his father to construct an ark because the god Zeus wished to destroy mankind. Deucalion and his wife entered the ark after stocking it with provisions. Zeus caused such a great rain that in nine days it washed down the greater part of Greece. Most men perished, except a few who fled to high mountains. Deucalion also survived in his ark. There were other Greek stories of a deluge. Some scholars distinguished three such events, although the one associated with Deucalion is the most famous.4

The Aztecs of Central America also had the concept of one or several deluges. These flood concepts antedate the sixteenth-century advent of missionaries, who brought the flood story from the Bible. The Aztec legend of beginnings5 includes an original earth which was destroyed by a great flood caused by the rain god Tlaloc. One account indicates that after the creation of the world there was a period of 1716 years before its destruction by flood and lightning.6 Severe earthquakes followed. Tlazolteolt is "the woman who sinned before the deluge", while the flood heroes Nata and Nena escaped the ravages by building themselves a ship. Others escaped by taking refuge in caverns or mountaintops. The threat of subsequent deluges was taken very seriously, and the Aztecs are reported to have sacrificed large numbers of children to the rain god Tlaloc as appeasement.

So? Which god is right?

robindch

MooseJam wrote: »

why don't creationists build a replica ark, if it floats it would put an end to so many objections

Because they know as well as I do that a 450 foot wooden box will fall to bits more or less as soon as it hits the open sea, if not before.

Still and all, while I'd like to see (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken blow some of his millions actually building one, I don't think any of us will live to see the day. Creationists scoff at science when it suits them, but like them visiting real doctors when they're ill, they're quite happy to pick from the fruits of science when they need to.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

What do the geologists here think of 'Immanuel Velikovsky'?

I'm not a geologist, but my fading memory of Velikovsky is that he did for astronomy back in the seventies or whenever what (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham does for biology these days. And in this, Velikovsky wasn't just a bit off-mark or occasionally inaccurate -- heavens, we can all be like that from time to time -- but rather he was grandly, amazingly, splendiferously, eye-bulgingly clueless about the universe he lived in.

If memory serves, he claimed, upon the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that the rocky planet Venus started off life within the clouds of the gas-giant Jupiter and while travelling, for reasons unknown, from there to its current orbit, passed by earth and stopped it on its axis, then started it again, caused the parting of the Red Sea, the arrival of frogs and some plague, and no doubt gave Nebuchadnezzar dandruff too. There was much more in a similar vein, but time has thankfully erased most of it.

Like flares and hula-hoops, Velikovsky's ideas are curiosities best left undisturbed in the dusty obscurity from which they should never have emerged.

.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

...Creationists scoff at science when it suits them, but like them visiting real doctors when they're ill, they're quite happy to pick from the fruits of science when they need to.

Good grief, you make it sound like the only people to have ever contributed to science and medicine throughout history all held atheistic views. Change the record will you. You're monotonous diatribes are irritating my nasal passages.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're monotonous diatribes are irritating my nasal passages.

And your sig with what looks like one of AiG's cartoons would probably bug me if I let it, but I don't

Soul Winner wrote: »

you make it sound like the only people to have ever contributed to science and medicine throughout history all held atheistic views.

Good heavens, where did I say that?

.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

I'm not a geologist, but my fading memory of Velikovsky is that he did for astronomy back in the seventies or whenever what (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham does for biology these days. And in this, Velikovsky wasn't just a bit off-mark or occasionally inaccurate -- heavens, we can all be like that from time to time -- but rather he was grandly, amazingly, splendiferously, eye-bulgingly clueless about the universe he lived in.

If memory serves, he claimed, upon the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that the rocky planet Venus started off life within the clouds of the gas-giant Jupiter and while travelling, for reasons unknown, from there to its current orbit, passed by earth and stopped it on its axis, then started it again, caused the parting of the Red Sea, the arrival of frogs and some plague, and no doubt gave Nebuchadnezzar dandruff too. There was much more in a similar vein, but time has thankfully erased most of it.

Like flares and hula-hoops, Velikovsky's ideas are curiosities best left undisturbed in the dusty obscurity from which they should never have emerged.

That's pretty vivid for a non geologist with a fading memory, are you sure you didn't Google???

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's pretty vivid for a non geologist with a fading memory, are you sure you didn't Google???

Quite sure -- Carl Sagan spent some time taking Velikovsky to bits in an episode of Cosmos that I watched last year. Uselessly, it brought back all the memories...

How come you're interested in IV?

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

And your sig with what looks like one of AiG's cartoons would probably bug me if I let it, but I don't

Oh you noticed that?

robindch wrote: »

Good heavens, where did I say that?

You implied it. Top post on this page, last sentence.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

How come you're interested in IV?

Was thinking I might dig my teeth into "Worlds in collision". It was recommended by a friend who happens to be a geologist, but he is also a Christian so that would probably absolve him of all credibility in your book.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh you noticed that?

Yes, a long time ago. In a moment of intellectual self-mutilation some while back, I waded through a few pages of these cartoons. It was like sticking hot needles under my nails and wiggling them about, but gave a good insight into what creationists (presumably) find amusing.

I can't help but notice as well that in adding your own screen name to the image, you're violating at least three of their terms and conditions. But I'm a nice guy -- I won't sneak you to Ken's legal department, but I will be interested to see if you change the image to stick to AiG's rules

Soul Winner wrote: »

You implied it. Top post on this page, last sentence.

I use 50 posts per page, so I'm not sure which one you mean. If it's the one where I mumbled about doctors, then you're misinterpreting me quite badly. My point is that creationists (not necessarily christians, or anything else) will use science when they need it, and feel free to distort it wilfully and brutally when they don't need it. Nothing implied about atheism or christians at all. Just creationists.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Was thinking I might dig my teeth into "Worlds in collision". It was recommended by a friend who happens to be a geologist

I'm gobsmacked. Where on earth did your friend qualify? Has he/she actually read the book and attempted to connect what it says with the reality beyond their front door?

As somebody said up above, it's entertaining stuff in a kind of 14-hours-LA-to-Sydney kind of way, but you'd need to be popping something quite strong to find it convincing.

.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Yes, a long time ago. In a moment of intellectual self-mutilation some while back, I waded through a few pages of these cartoons. It was like sticking hot needles under my nails and wiggling them about, but gave a good insight into what creationists (presumably) find amusing.

Now that's funny

robindch wrote: »

I can't help but notice as well that in adding your own screen name to the image, you're violating at least three of their terms and conditions. But I'm a nice guy -- I won't sneak you to Ken's legal department, but I will be interested to see if you change the image to stick to AiG's rules

There is a spare block at the end so I just stuck my own little sig on it. It's not interfering with the original Art work at all. So no laws have been broken. See here

robindch wrote: »

I use 50 posts per page, so I'm not sure which one you mean. If it's the one where I mumbled about doctors, then you're misinterpreting me quite badly. My point is that creationists (not necessarily christians, or anything else) will use science when they need it, and feel free to distort it wilfully and brutally when they don't need it. Nothing implied about atheism or christians at all. Just creationists.

I'm sorry for misrepresenting your mumblings and treating them as something you have strong views about. It won’t happen again, I promise.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

I'm gobsmacked. Where on earth did your friend qualify? Has he/she actually read the book and attempted to connect what it says with the reality beyond their front door?

As somebody said up above, it's entertaining stuff in a kind of 14-hours-LA-to-Sydney kind of way, but you'd need to be popping something quite strong to find it convincing.

.

Is that your opinion of the book or Carl Sagan’s?

Scofflaw

Velikovsky...that takes me back! I read "Ages in Chaos" at more or less the same time I was reading a lot of Von Daniken. Of the two, Von Daniken would be the more coherent...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Minder

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry then. I took it you were referring to the creationist interpretation when you outlined the ark scenario. Whose interpretation was it then?

My interpretation. Do you find it inaccurate?

bonkey

Soul Winner wrote: »

Should it? All it says is that: "The age of its genetic material was recently calculated using carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida."

No, thats not all it says. Thats one piece of what it says.

It also says "The visible portion of the spruce was comparatively new, but analysis of four "generations" of remains - cones and wood - found underneath its crown showed its root system had been growing for 9,550 years, Umeaa University said."

It goes on to say that "spruce's stems or trunks had a lifespan of around 600 years, but as soon as one died, a cloned stem could emerge from the root system."

What genetic material are they referring to?

The genetic material contained in the remains.

If it's still alive then how can they know how old it is by using carbon dating?

By carbon dating parts that aren't still alive - the generations of remains.

Please don't point me to the article again, just explain it in your own words please.

Why shouldn't I refer you to the article again? It explains what was dated. It explains the features of a spruce tree that makes such a dating possible.

I'm not saying it's not 10,000 years old, I just want how they carbon dated it, explained a little better.

In order to explain it better, I need to know what part of the article you don't understand.

If your position was that you don't understand the explanation of trunks dying every few hundred years, while the root system lives on, then I could try explaining it differently. However, thats not your position...your position is that this explanation isn't in the article which it most clearly is.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is a spare block at the end so I just stuck my own little sig on it. It's not interfering with the original Art work at all. So no laws have been broken. See here

Well I'm not sure about "laws", but you have broken their terms and agreements.

General use guidelines:

1. The text and artwork may not be altered in any way, including the copyright and AiG Web address.
2. No more than 5 AE cartoons may be displayed in any publication or Web site.
3. The cartoons featured on this site are copyrighted material. They may not be used outside of the guidelines given on this site.

If you would like to display an After Eden cartoon on your site, please follow these Web rules:

1. Use no more than 5 After Eden cartoons on your Web site at a time.
2. If your site is for profit, contact us first.
3. Please create a link to the AiG Web site.
4. Let us know the location of your site.