RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,17:40   

Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,17:29)
So, tell us, FL, if there was a global flood 4000 years ago as described in the Bible, why is there no evidence of it?  How were the Pyramids built if they were constructed at a time where the population was 8?  Why do all of the ancient cities of Mesopotamia, or any other civilization from 4000 years ago, show no sign of being obliterated by a global flood?

Maybe that was the first insurance claim, and the reason why most homeowners' policies don't cover flood insurance.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,17:45   

I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."

Rather than behaving honorably and adhering to his "good faith" agreement and dealing with the many unanswered direct questions put to him today alone, he chose to post up that bit.  

I went back and looked a few pages in this thread, and I can't find any reason for it -- certainly nothing today that I saw.

ETA: Interesting. I don't see anything from the beginning of this thread onwards that would lead him to post that ; it's not a response to anyone that I can see on this thread at all.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,18:03   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,17:45)
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."

That's because FL's goal here is not to debate, but to preach at us.
Quote
Rather than behaving honorably and adhering to his "good faith" agreement and dealing with the many unanswered direct questions put to him today alone, he chose to post up that bit.  

I went back and looked a few pages in this thread, and I can't find any reason for it -- certainly nothing today that I saw.

ETA: Interesting. I don't see anything from the beginning of this thread onwards that would lead him to post that ; it's not a response to anyone that I can see on this thread at all.
Only a total, utter fool would possess the fatally naivity required to trust FL to "act honorably" or, laughably, "act in good faith."

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,18:21   

I have to admit that I didn't really expect Floyd Lee to act *completely * honorably or with any real ethics.

BUT I also have to admit that I scarcely expected Floyd Lee to just completely ignore his own agreement to act in good faith...which I stipulated meant responding directly to direct questions. He just acts as if his word means nothing at all, blatantly.

Not shocking by any means, but still revealing in terms of how YECs operate.

There's a familiar adage about YECs that "they can't NOT lie" about what they beleve versus what the evidence can show. I've seen this in action many times, of course -- but seldom so clearly and without any concern about the obvious duplicity/dishonesty so easily apparent.

However, combine his recent actions (like the "Local v. Global Fludde " post to no one) and I think what I see is a desperate YEC trying to get martyred.

"Death by cop" kinda thing.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,20:13   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,14:49)
Cherry-picking who to respond to -- despite initially agreeing to act in good faith , Floyd? And actual responses to interlocutors was part of that "good faith" deal.

For shame, sir. For shame.


FL said he was here to debate.  But his actions show that he's here to debase.

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,20:21   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,09:28)
 
Quote
If God is timeless, then it all unfolds to the majesty of his great plan, surely?


Very interesting you should word it that way, because the existence of "the majesty of His great plan" WRT biological origins is exactly what evolution denies.

Evolution does not deny anything.  Evolution does not affirm anything.  Evolution is a fact.

I once put the fact that the Earth is (approximately) spherical on a chair and interrogated it for an hour and a half.  It neither affirmed nor denied anything!

I'm certain that evolution would be equally reticent.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,20:34   

Quote (Dan @ Sep. 22 2009,20:13)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,14:49)
Cherry-picking who to respond to -- despite initially agreeing to act in good faith , Floyd? And actual responses to interlocutors was part of that "good faith" deal.

For shame, sir. For shame.


FL said he was here to debate.  But his actions show that he's here to debase.

And preach.

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,20:40   

So far, this has been a classic example of the futility of trying to reason (arguably, there seems to be very little debate going on) with a close-minded, irrational, fanatic. The frightening thing is that, contrary to Floyd's imaginary fears that millions are in peril of going straight to f'ing hell, fanatical and irrational literalist fundamentalism (such as YEC) seems to be growing, not dwindling - at least here in the U.S. (Ham's Creation "Museum" and the mega-churches seem to be thriving and expanding businesses) Of course, Floyd will totally deny that he is close-minded, irrational, or fanatical. Close-minded, irrational fanatics always do.

--------------
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,20:42   

Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 22 2009,20:40)
Of course, Floyd will totally deny that he is close-minded, irrational, or fanatical. Close-minded, irrational fanatics always do.

Hence the term "invincible ignorance"

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,23:20   

FL seems to have totally ignored my damning point I made looooooooooooooooong ago here. So I'll repeat it and spell it out for him and the rest of you:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....genesis


It’s not just evolution that discredits Genesis!

It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear:

Genesis 1:16 – “God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.”

Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that  the stars are nothing more than a decoration  to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8BncJ7XMLk

Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: “God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.”

Ironically,  in another part of the Bible, we read:

Psalms 19:1-2: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”

If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to “declare the glory of God” and also fail to “display knowledge” like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,23:40   


The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.


Quote


Matthew 16:15-19 (King James Version)

15 [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.



Nothing there about believeing in Creationism. Especially not the Young Earth kind.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,00:52   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 22 2009,23:40)

The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.


 
Quote


Matthew 16:15-19 (King James Version)

15 [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.



Nothing there about believeing in Creationism. Especially not the Young Earth kind.

Unfortunately, FL demonstrates that he does not give a flying fig tree about what Jesus said if Jesus contradicts what FL is preaching.

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,01:20   

As I stated earlier - Floyd is well equiped for a comfortable life of mind ...provided he had lived before the middle of the 19th century - I guess he missed out by about 150 years or so. What worries me more are all the others who think like him and are in positions of making education policies at state and local levels.

--------------
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,02:20   

I consider it a well documented fact that people like FL create their own religion of faith based on their personal understanding of scripture. Nothing can make them waver.

An integral part of that package is the urge to proselytize.

The agenda is FL's, the flood was not included in that.

People like FL ignore all bible scholarship, be it Albert Schweitzer or all the rest over 2000 years.

What characterize Christian apologetics and creationists is that they do not seek truth, they only seek confirmation of their faith.

What more is there to say? I won't bother with "casting pearls before swine."

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,08:37   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,17:24)

Quote
Stanton speaks of:
 
Quote
....the fact that the Pope is a walking, talking, benedicting refutation of all four of FL's points.

So, Stanton, sounds like you've worked your way through this.  Please do me a favor, then?  Please locate exactly (online, print, any way you can) where Pope Benedict has stated a specific refutation for each of the Big Four (actually, now it's the Big Five, so please include each of the Big Five.)  

Then show 'em to me so I can examine and consider them.

Thanks in advance!     :)


Burden of proof fallacy, Floyd. No no...YOU have to demonstrate (as I noted) that the Pope even thinks that the Big Five are valid since his statements clearly indicate a contradiction to such. So unless you can establish that he, as a Christian, accepts your Big Five, the only logical conclusion is that they are not valid. LOL!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,08:46   

Quote
I provided a URL mentioning the Pope saying that it was nonsense to believe in Young Earth Creationism and a literal reading of the Bible earlier in this thread.

Yes, I did read it.  So in fact, the Pope has NOT actually addressed the specific Big Five Incompatibilities at all, let alone provided a solution for them.  
Would you agree Stanton?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,08:58   

Quote
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."

That actually belonged in the peanut thread (I'll paste a copy there today) because some folks mentioned the issue there.

It's an honest mistake, no big deal, but I can understand your hand-wringing about it though.  Much easier for you to do that than to deal with those Big Five, much easier.

FloydLee

  
k.e..



Posts: 4873
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,09:15   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,16:58)
Quote
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."

That actually belonged in the peanut thread (I'll paste a copy there today) because some folks mentioned the issue there.

It's an honest mistake, no big deal, but I can understand your hand-wringing about it though.  Much easier for you to do that than to deal with those Big Five, much easier.

FloydLee

Bwhahahahahahahaha

THE BIG FIVE?

.....From a little pissant.

Come on FL tell us all about ghosts, demons, satan, ufos, global warming, when jesus returns (gaffaw), hell (snikker)
the monetary system, Obama's birth, granny killing for Deomcrats, the injustice done to Ken Ham

be a sport.

I'll tell you what. You conceed polygamy for Christian whack jobs and I'll conceed Evolution didn't happen on the sun.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,09:52   

In fact, this Pope angle has been really weak, coming from you guys.  

The Pope hasn't addressed the Big Five, hasn't provided ANY kind of reconcilations, the Pope hasn't addressed the self-testimonies of evolutionists who say that evolution was part of their loss of faith.

And of course, in all your attempts you consistently fail to mention that in fact, the Pope has in fact AFFIRMED the first and second of the Big Five.
   
Quote
"With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word -- this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos -- is also love."

<a href="http://kdka.com/national/Vatican.Pope.Benedict.2.259662.html" target="_blank"></a>  

Take note:

1.  God is the Required Explanation for origins, according to the Pope.  And note the scope of the claim:  "c.r.e.a.t.e.d  e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g".   That's the first of the Big Five, you'll remember.  And it's a big one.

2.  Teleology again.  That 'creative word' and 'creative reason' is STRAIGHT teleology, not a penny less. Conscious forethought.  Purpose.  Goal-directedness.
Oh sure sure, the Pope still supports evolution.  BUT....only on condition that teleology is admitted in the evolutionary process.  For e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g.  The pope used a notable phrase, btw---"Intelligent Project".  

Doesn't mean he's an ID guy, (he's a TE guy, not ID), but it DOES mean a solid endorsement of teleology.  God's teleology, even.  He's saying it's NOT optional.  That's the huge second gig of the Big Five.

In fact, the Pope quotes St. Basil, in case you don't git the message.
   
Quote
He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."

"How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order," he said.

And remember, the Pope has NEVER retracted these particular statements of his.  Not even once.  (Any atheists out there?  He's in your face there.)

But hey, by him insisting on God-Is-Required-Explanation and God-Teleology-in-Evolution, doesn't that directly contradict evolutionary theory's non-negotialte NT-NCF, doesn't that negate Futuyma EB-3rd Mayr Coyne Biology-391?  "Evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADMIT...", right?
 
Right.  Absolutely.  So how does the Pope rationally resolve this discrepancy?  He never says how.  The giant incompatibility remains unresolved to this day.)

******

So, would you guys mind ramping it up a bit on this Pope thing?  Right now your attempts to exploit him are looking mighteh weak.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,10:05   

Hey, let me offer something extra here.  
If you are Catholic and interested in evolution, you may be especially interested in Thomas Centrella's excellent article, "Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?"  

(He makes a very good papal-based case that it is NOT.)  

Give it a try:

http://www.kolbecenter.org/centrella_te_plausible.htm

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,10:16   

On page 12, the possibility of a local Flood was raised.  In response to that, I would point out:

There is absolutely NO chance the Noahic Flood can be local....unless, as the late OEC professor of Old Testament Gleason Archer suggested in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, the Bible is just flat-out in error about the Flood, period.

First, the Bible itself only points in ONE direction:  Global Noahic Flood.  Not local.  Accept it or reject it, take it or leave it.  Global Flood or No Flood.  That's the only choice the Biblical data offers to you.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm

IOW, if the Bible is wrong about the Global Noahic Flood, you actually CANNOT salvage that situation by claiming it was just a local flood.  Simply doesn't work that way.

And even the skeptics know the score on that situation.  Notice what the Secular Blasphemy blog at Salon.com says.

Quote
Why the Ark?

One obvious question, often asked by global flood proponents, is: If the flood was only local, why should Noah and family have to build an ark to survive?

It would have been much easier to just relocate. Given the long warning, they could have relocated practically anywhere on the planet.

Also, why all the work to save the animals? Animal species would easily survive elsewhere.

Also, why birds? If the water started to rise, the birds would be better off flying away than staying inside a ship. This is certainly a strong argument against a local flood scenario. The internal logic of the Genesis story strongly implies a global flood.

Even if we leave this question aside, the Ark story is not much easier to defend from the perspective of a local flood than a global one.

It is the obvious fact that whoever wrote the Genesis flood legend was not a member of a sea-faring nation. Ancient Israel was not famous for its ships, and the description of the Ark shows that the author hadn't the faintest clue about how to make a seaworthy vessel. It is safe to say that the story would look very different had it been written in Phoenicia, Britain or, for that matter, Norway.

Anyone growing up by the sea in Norway, as I have, would learn the sad truth about wooden vessels: they leak. Always. A lot. Even a small wooden rowboat will accumulate so much water during a few hours in the water that you get very familiar with a scoop and, if you're not used to it, painful blisters in your hands.

A wooden sea vessel 140 meters (450 ft) long is simply impossible.

First, it would leak so much and so heavily that even a battery of modern engine pumps would be hard pressed to save it from a watery grave.

Second, the structure would not be strong enough to carry its own weight in calm water, and much less during a violent flood. Large wooden vessels have hardly been possible even in the industrial age, and then they needed to be reinforced with iron and of course they required constant pumping.

To the landlubber who wrote Genesis, pitch may sound like it's sufficient to make a boat watertight. It is not. Obviously, extrapolating experience with pitch on roofs that only had to sustain rain to what is needed for a boat is very inadequate. Wooden vessels must also be allowed to swell for a period in water before they are sea worthy. The Ark in Genesis didn't even go through this process. No wonder the Hebrews stayed on dry land....


Quote
Where was the Flood?

....The arguments against the flood outlined above are really just included for completeness, because there is one topic where the local flood scenario breaks down completely and proves to be almost equally absurd as the global flood:
the geographic location of the flood.

In debating flood proponents, I have had serious problems making them understand this very simple fact: a local flood requires a totally enclosed area, where all of the mountains or hills making up the enclosing rim around the flooded area must be higher than the flood itself.

A simple kitchen experiment will confirm this. You can try from here to eternity to fill up only half of the area of your kitchen sink with water, while allowing the other half to remain dry.

Without making some sort of wall, it is simply not possible. Given a chance to escape, water will run out of the enclosure. That is why we have rivers, and that's why the few land areas in the world lower than the sea level are not connected to the ocean by a channel or river.

Where was the local flood? Most casual Bible readers will assume this to be a silly question. Everybody knows that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat. This is the reason fundamentalist Christians from time to time are engaged in the silly exercise of trying to find the Ark somewhere on this mountain.

Obviously, if the Ark landed on Mt Ararat, the local flood scenario is physically impossible.
This mountain is actually by far the highest in the whole region, with the highest peak 5,137 meters (16,854 ft) above sea level. If the water stood higher than the top of Mt Ararat, then only a small handful of peaks, like a few mountains in the Himalayas, were visible above the water. The flood would have to be global. End of story.

However, the Bible does not actually say that the Ark landed on Mt Ararat. It says:

Genesis 8:3,4 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

Ararat, in this text, does not describe a mountain, but a region:

"The name Ararat, as it appears in the Bible, is the Hebrew equivalent of Urardhu, or Urartu, the Assyro-Babylonian name of a kingdom that flourished between the Aras and the Upper Tigris rivers from the 9th to the 7th century BC." Encyclopædia Britannica, "Mount Ararat" (article no longer freely available online)

We actually find the region, or kingdom, mentioned in four different verses of the Bible (two of which reads the same):

Genesis 8:4 "and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

2 Kings 19:37 and Isaiah 37:38 "One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer cut him down with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king." (These two scriptures are the same)

Jeremiah 51:27 "Lift up a banner in the land! Blow the trumpet among the nations! Prepare the nations for battle against her; summon against her these kingdoms: Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz. Appoint a commander against her; send up horses like a swarm of locusts."

The Ararat area thus was a remote, but known, area to the Hebrew authors of Old Testament books. It corresponds, actually, to the region where we find Mt Ararat, so the tradition of placing the Ark on this mountain is not contrary to the Bible, but it must be noted that the quoted verse, in isolation, allows the Ark to land on any of the mountains in this area.

According to Black's Bible Dictionary, the Ararat area is

"A section of E[ast] Armenia E[ast] of the Araxes River, somewhat N[orth] of Lakes Van and Urmia, today belonging to Turkey. Ararat provides part of Euphrates' source." (M. S. Miller and J. L. Miller. 1973. Black's Bible Dictionary. London: A. and C. Black Limited. Page 31.)

If the reader is to take the Bible's word as fact, and accept that the Ark landed on some mountain in the Ararat area in East Armenia, then obviously the whole discussion about how to translate the Hebrew word 'har' (discussed later) is totally moot.

To adapt the old joke saying there is no such a thing as 'half a mile' in Australia, it is obvious that the Ararat area has no hills, only mountains. When the Bible says that the water rouse above the 'highest mountains' in this area - which actually is Mt Ararat itself - this makes a local flood scenario absolutely impossible. Look up this area on a map. Lake Van is 1,662 meters (5,452 ft) above sea level. The area is, as far as it's possible to see on a good map, more than 200 kilometers from any area as low as 500 meters above sea level, and twice as long to any area below 200 meters.

Naturally, any flood rising to such levels would have been a global disaster.
The local flood proponents still face an impossible scenario.The local flood believers thus have to relocate the flood to some other region.

Disregarding the exact geographic designation found of the Bible - the whereabouts of the Ararat area is known both from Babylonian and Bible sources - they go searching for some area where they can find room for a local flood and an ark. Somewhere, presumably, with hills but without mountains.

One favorite location for many local flood proponents is the Euphrates-Tigris valley, also known as Mesopotamia. This, they say, is an area without many tall mountains (at least in the southern part), and it is also not too far away from the Biblical lands. Presumably, not moving the Ararat area too far away from where it historically was is also a concern with these apologists, even though their thinking here seems a bit hard to understand.

Again, local flood proponents demonstrate a total lack of understanding of topology and geography.
If you look at a map of an area, and a river runs through it, you can know quite a bit about elevation even without further investigation. If a river runs from the north to the south, as the Euphrates and Tigris rivers generally do, you can be certain about one thing: the land will consistently tilt southwards. Following the river, at no part of the run will the land rise notably. If the land flattens, or especially rises, the river will have to run around it or form a lake that rises to the edge, and then allows the water to run on. This is pretty self-evident.

So, since the Mesopotamian valley contains two rivers, it necessarily cannot contain any mountains or other formations that can form an enclosure for a large flooded area. If it should rain so heavily that it makes the water rise temporarily in some area, the water will quickly escape through any opening. The Biblical flood lasted for many months, which is physically impossible without a totally enclosed area.


Quote
We also have to ask how large the flooded area would have to be.
While local flood proponents will have to demonstrate imaginative exegesis generally, it can't be seriously denied that the Genesis text insists that Noah and the other people on the Ark did not see land during many months when they sailed around on the water:

Genesis 8:3-5: "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."

As we can see, only some time after the Ark had landed on a mountain did other tops become visible. From this we can easily conclude that this mountain was the tallest in the region, except, presumably, the enclosing mountains that were too distant from the Ark to be visible.

A rule of thumb, well known to sea men, is that the distance to the horizon in nautical miles is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye in feet. So, since the Ark was 45 feet high (and the window was at the top), we find that an observer would be able to see the horizon 7.85 nautical miles (14.5 km, 9 miles) away. What we are looking for, of course, is how far away an observer could see the enclosing mountains, and since there is no totally smooth crater top of comparative size anywhere in the world, the edge can't be expected to be totally smooth.

Also, since the water resided over a number of months, the relative height of these mountains must steadily have raised. (Gen 8:3 says: "The water receded steadily from the earth.") Yet, nobody on the Ark could see them, so it had to be outside the area that could be seen from the Ark.

Even if we assume the height of the flood enclosure to be no more than 45 feet (same as height of Ark), we would need a circular area with a radius of around 20 km (12.4 miles). That would mean 40 km either way. And this, of course, assumes that the Ark was totally immovable, standing in the exact middle of the flooded area. Is that possible in a turbulent, violent flood? It goes without saying that such a scenario is impossible. And it gets worse. Anyone who has forgotten to moor a small boat, or done it badly, will know that even in smooth waters, only a few hours later the boat will be a speck on the horizon. If it is windy, the situation will be even worse. And the Bible says:

Genesis 8:1 "But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded."

This wind blew for 150 days, and a big, rectangular vessel like the Ark would be strongly influenced by this wind (large boats are not allowed to enter narrow channels in strong wind, because they can easily be pushed off course). Even if we assume that the Ark only held a speed of one knot (unrealistically slow), this could take the ark more than 6500 km (4000 miles). That would actually allow the Ark to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 150 days. With a more realistic speed, the strong wind God sent would send the Ark around the Earth many times.

Of course, this presumes a global, not a local, flood, which is exactly what the Genesis text describes.
 

There's a lot more anti-local-Flood arguments offered in that article, but this will do for now.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/

******

So, for Christians, a key decision must be made.  Will you choose to believe the Bible and believe in the Global Noahic Flood?  Or will you disbelieve the Bible and abandon the entire Flood story period?  

Those are your only two choices, and whichever choice you make will influence future choices, when the skeptics come a-callin' again WRT other Bible issues.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,10:21   

test message

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,10:22   

Okay, now I see what's happening.  Apparently, anything I post on the peanut thread is automatically being redirected to the main debate thread.

Well, no problem.  But that explains why the post about the Flood appeared here.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,10:24   

Firstly, you fail to point out specifically where the Pope was demanding that evolution must be denied in order to be a Christian, and you fail to point out specifically where the Pope was demanding that the Book of Genesis must be read literally, and you also fail to point out where the Pope was demanding that a True Christian must follow the five points you pulled out of your arse in order to be a True Christian.

We bring up the Pope to counter your pathetic and ridiculous points, FL, because he is an example of a Christian who finds no need to deny evolution to maintain his faith in God.

In fact, FL, you haven't produced a single example of a Christian who is a better Christian because he holds the Bible to be the ultimate authority on literally everything to the point of denying reality and accusing other Christians who don't hold to sola scriptura to be wrong and broken.  That, and if being a True Christian means not only denying reality, but to also be like you, a smug, gossiping liar who apparently takes arrogant pride that his word has less value than soiled toilet paper, millions of Christians would sooner become soulless apostates than to be like you.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,10:40   

Floyd, can you clarify something for me?

Your first incompatibility of "evolution"* and what you call Christianity claims that God is the required explanation for the origin of, well, everything. You cite Colossians 1:16, which suggests to me that in your view, God is the originator of all things seen and unseen, not just the earth, animals, plants, stars etc (Genesis) or Jesus (John).

Does this mean, in your view, that "Biblical Christianity" states that God creates all things even now? For example, I am looking at patterns created on a computer screen as I type this. Did God create those patterns? They weren't there a moment ago (gosh! there's another one!). And I had the distinct impression that some combination of me, Bill Gates, Michael Dell and the Electricity Supply Board were doing the creating. Am I wrong? If not, the reason you find incompatibility between "evolution" and your "Biblical Christianity" is because your "Biblical Christianity" is so ludicrously and selectively literal that no rational person would accept it.

Perhaps you'll say that, no, what God did was create all the matter and energy and the rest is down to Nature and human agency. If so, how does that make theistic evolution incompatible with the theory of evolution (as understood in non-YEC circles)? Is your God so small that he cannot direct evolution as he sees fit? Having created the universe, is he bound by laws of probability and the likes?

I have to say, Floyd, it truly looks like everyone is out of step but you. But maybe you'll set us right.


* Which for some reason known only to Floyd, takes in cosmology, geology, biochemistry, genetics, abiogenesis, and, quite possibly, bicycle maintenance

Edit: fixed footnote failure

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,12:06   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,09:52)
 

Quote
In fact, this Pope angle has been really weak, coming from you guys.  

The Pope hasn't addressed the Big Five, hasn't provided ANY kind of reconcilations, the Pope hasn't addressed the self-testimonies of evolutionists who say that evolution was part of their loss of faith.


Now you're just trying to make an Argument from Silence. Unfortunately by your own claim it becomes apparent that the Pope has indeed addressed your Big Five. The Pope has said in no uncertain terms that evolution does not conflict with Christianity - a direct addressing (by way of dismissing) of your Big Five and, as I noted earlier, an address that creates an internal conflict for your argument. You've not addressed that conflict yet, so all we can conclude is that your argument is invalid. Feel free to point out how your claims do not conflict however.

Quote
Doesn't mean he's an ID guy, (he's a TE guy, not ID), but it DOES mean a solid endorsement of teleology.  God's teleology, even.  He's saying it's NOT optional.  That's the huge second gig of the Big Five.


And, as I noted previously, that's fine. Evolutionary Theory doesn't conclude or incorporate the notion that teleology doesn't exist - it merely notes that evolution require teleology. If you want to hold teleology as a necessity - fine - evolution still works the same way regardless.

Quote
But hey, by him insisting on God-Is-Required-Explanation and God-Teleology-in-Evolution, doesn't that directly contradict evolutionary theory's non-negotialte NT-NCF, doesn't that negate Futuyma EB-3rd Mayr Coyne Biology-391?  "Evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADMIT...", right?


Nope. Not one bit. You're just looking really silly.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,12:29   

Just a reminder for Quack:  whatever I type in the peanut thread seems to be redirecting to the main debate board.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,12:34   

Having said that,  let's look at one Quack statement.

Quote
That’s only the beginning, the whole bible stinks – and it reeks of symbolic language too.


Just curious, a sort of side inquiry:  how many of you readers agree with that specific statement?

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,12:46   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,12:34)

Quote
Having said that,  let's look at one Quack statement.

Quote
That’s only the beginning, the whole bible stinks – and it reeks of symbolic language too.


Just curious, a sort of side inquiry:  how many of you readers agree with that specific statement?


I personally don't think it stinks. I find it holds the same type of inspirational thinking, guidance, and morale teaching as can be found in Aesop's Fables, Mark Twain's letters, Homer's Odyssey, and the Lord of the Rings as well as other great works. It is a set of fables that one can find some truly admirable and life rewarding concepts in. It can be fun collection of stories to read if one can get past the Old English, harshly translated Koine, and humorous Hebrew.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,12:50   

Just as a point of information:

Floyd Lee's current tactic is to pretend his "Big Five " have not been addressed.

This is coupled with his avoiding answering those points raised against his claims (so he can pretend those responses don't exist).

In doing so, Floyd Lee has abandoned his own agreement to engage in good-faith debate.

As I stated to Floyd Lee prior to starting this thread;

" debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent ...
fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that.

Floyd Lee's own choices have determined that other posters are no longer obliged to treat Floyd Lee as anything more than a fraud willing to go back on his word -- a fanatic without ethics or honor.

It appears that's exactly what he wants to be able to claim "persecution" and "victory" based on emotional appeal rather than the strength of his argument and logic (since he has none of the latter).

Myself, I find mockery of his stupidity, dishonesty, childlike views and blatantly false claims is enough. Others can do as they wish, of course. There are no longer any special rules to this thread. Floyd Lee has seen to that.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
  2975 replies since Sep. 12 2009,22:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (100) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]