Crazy Bible Stories

[skepticalbip]

The proof that there was a global flood is that Noah built and ark and gathered all those animals. Why would he have done all that and stayed on the ark with all those stinking animals for so long if there wasn't a flood?

 

[Keith&Co.]

hard to imagine what the world would have been like if all or even half of all fossils formed in a single event, huh?

Just look at chalk.

Big huge cliffs of deposits. In 'our' world, that's millions of years of fairly unchanging conditions, little shelled creatures living and dying and shells sinking to the bottom, crushed under greater layers on top, eventually squeezed down into rocks.
In the world of The Flood, all those little chalk hoarders lived at the same time, and hung out in the same spot, and died, maybe from shock as the Waters Above and Waters Below foamed through. But all those living things living together? There would have been spots in the sea that a Mastodon could have walked across. It wouldn't even had been an ooze, or a sludge. Or wet, really. Just mountains of calcite-shelled critters waiting to be trash-compacted to chalk...

And that's not counting a few million generations of plants all living at the same time, in order to compress down to form oil, coal, gas. You'd think a bible writer would have mentioned plant life being two, three miles thick on the Earth before the flood, with civilization existing by tunneling through the plant matter.

At least a day of the Creation story would have been spent just slathering plant life onto the Earth with an enormous shovel. "And on the third and a half day, the gigantic pallets of peat were delivered, and God did dump that shit everywhere."

 

[Learner]

Enormous shovel iinteresting ... a large volume of water can move a large volume of earth in a big tsunami sort of way. They can wash away foundations beneath large things that once stood upon them. Besides - small floods in comparison to The Flood, move houses and uproot trees down newly formed rivers or streams. Things (some) can get buried when water recedes . Park your cars up hills I say before they float away.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It could depend on the sediment accumulation in such a flood, which would bury pretty much everything.

Pretty much.

Would be quite a lot of very deep digging for the future archeoligists looking for bones, I suspect.

You have no idea the extent of the known geology of Earth, do you? The extent of drilling? Or all of the rock outcrops or ravines that give us an immediate snapshot of deposition and reworking of some rock.

Some good indivdual topic ideas, nice one.

Not really. The global flood is completely indefendable.

 

[Learner]

Pretty much.
You have no idea the extent of the known geology of Earth, do you? The extent of drilling? Or all of the rock outcrops or ravines that give us an immediate snapshot of deposition and reworking of some rock.

Well the most obvious is ... bible-sense is not fathomable in the modern world even if it were to be true. The "best explanation" (within fathomable) is what you mean of course.

Some good indivdual topic ideas, nice one.

Not really. The global flood is completely indefendable.

Times change and I've seen datings of findings move about, to fit various other elements which would be contradicting otherwise. Whale bones found way up in the mountains, means moving the age of the whale bones back to match the estimated age of the mountain to when it arose for example. Or IIRC the theory they shifted up those mountains after a considerable time by earth rumbles and tremors or earth / plates shifting. Perhaps its acceptable that both happened and there are two defenders of these ideas.

 

[skepticalbip]

We have found that there isn't a firmament (a large, solid dome) above the Earth separating the 'waters above' from the Earth below. Because of this we find it unlikely that the non-existent firmament opened to flood the Earth with the non-existent water it was separating from the Earth. We have also found that the Earth isn't floating on the large sea of the 'waters below'. This makes it unlikely that the non-existent 'waters below' washed over the Earth either.

 

[Learner]

Yes, we have found that there isn't a firmament (a large, solid dome) above the Earth separating the 'waters above' from the Earth below. Because of this we find it unlikely that the non-existent firmament opened to flood the Earth with the non-existent water it was separating from the Earth. We have also found that the Earth isn't floating on the large sea of the 'waters below'. This makes it unlikely that the non-existent 'waters below' washed over the Earth either.

Well you again didn't read the bible, most of the water came from under not from the sky. There is no drill deep enough to tell you everything of whats down there.

The firmament I don't yet know the explanation being an unfathomable. So one out of many humdreds, so to speak, is fine, I'm sure you'll accept I don't know everything in the bible.

 

[skepticalbip]

I would have to conclude from that response that it is you that didn't read the Bible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Enormous shovel iinteresting ... a large volume of water can move a large volume of earth in a big tsunami sort of way. They can wash away foundations beneath large things that once stood upon them. Besides - small floods in comparison to The Flood, move houses and uproot trees down newly formed rivers or streams. Things (some) can get buried when water recedes . Park your cars up hills I say before they float away.

Yeah, every time my ships went into drydock, there were plenty of dead fish on the bottom when either the waters were pumped out or the drydock was raised. None of them buried by silt, though. Some mud IN the drydock, but not enough to hide anything.

But what floods have you seen that completely buried any corpses produced as a result of the flooding? The Creationist flood cosmology is pretty complicated, what with every species of animal being sorted in the mud. An extensive sorting, too. The old, the young, their eggs (whole and cracked), empty nests, footprints...If you have an example of floods or mudslides moving footprints, that would be pretty cool.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Times change and I've seen datings of findings move about, to fit various other elements which would be contradicting otherwise.

Without a specific example, i have to assume you're talking about increased precision with new evidence.
If you mean something else, what else?

Whale bones found way up in the mountains, means moving the age of the whale bones back to match the estimated age of the mountain to when it arose for example.

Got a citation for this?
What do you mean by 'moving the age of the whale bones?' How did they date the bones in the first place?
And who dates fossils by when the mountain arose?
Seriously, they either had a good date for the strata the bones were in or they did not.

Or IIRC the theory they shifted up those mountains after a considerable time by earth rumbles and tremors or earth / plates shifting.

Maybe your IIRC needs some corroboration.
What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well you again didn't read the bible, most of the water came from under not from the sky.

Most? What says most came from the Waters Below? It says the fountains of the deep opened up AND the windows in the firmament were opened. Doesn't say how much came from which, far as i know.
Where do you find support for your claim, here?

There is no drill deep enough to tell you everything of whats down there.

God of the gaps, noted.

The firmament I don't yet know the explanation being an unfathomable. So one out of many humdreds, so to speak, is fine, I'm sure you'll accept I don't know everything in the bible.

And this, then, is why i call your stance based on bullshit.
The book is very clear that the firmament is a solid dome.
The Earth is lke an inside-out snow-globe, a bubble of air that has a flat bottom (the Water Below) and a dome keeping the water out above. Except when God wants rain, and opens the windows in the firmament, to let water fall through.
But you know that's not accurate to the real world. So you edit scripture as necessary, making parts literal when you think you can get away with it, and allegory when you're forced to, so that the Bble doesn't egregiously violate reality as you accept it.

 

[Learner]

Yeah, every time my ships went into drydock, there were plenty of dead fish on the bottom when either the waters were pumped out or the drydock was raised. None of them buried by silt, though. Some mud IN the drydock, but not enough to hide anything.

But what floods have you seen that completely buried any corpses produced as a result of the flooding? The Creationist flood cosmology is pretty complicated, what with every species of animal being sorted in the mud. An extensive sorting, too. The old, the young, their eggs (whole and cracked), empty nests, footprints...If you have an example of floods or mudslides moving footprints, that would be pretty cool.

Do you mean floods that take hours, days, months? You get varying results.

I suppose I could address the flaw about the previous receding flood here:

Steve posts : it must have quickly stunk to 'high heaven' to to speak. And all the rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded....
(A flawed theory imo )

actually, i do believe that there were no rotting plants in the story. Because biblically, 'living' is limited to things that breathe thru their nostrils. To the authors of the Flood, the plants would not have suffered from being drowned.
Thus, the olive branch was green as soon as the water receeded.

But that issue is not solved by introducing sediment

You see, I got carried away into the context that steve provided when he said : it must have quickly stunk to 'high heaven' to to speak. And all the rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded.... A FLAWED notion in the biblical sense.

This context is a sooner than the written 'soon after" the flood the water recedes... perhaps he (which you seem to agree with) are mistaken, in great error , thinking this was after fourty days and nights.

There'd be NO rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded...when the waters receded gradually (as its written) after 150 days! More than enough time!

 

[skepticalbip]

.... snip ....
This context is a sooner than the written 'soon after" the flood the water recedes... perhaps he (which you seem to agree with) are mistaken, in great error , thinking this was after fourty days and nights.

There'd be NO rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded...when the waters receded gradually (as its written) after 150 days! More than enough time!

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to be one of the writers for answersingenesis.org? That web site also does a lot of hand waving and ignoring inconvenient passages in the Bible.

 

[Learner]

.... snip ....
This context is a sooner than the written 'soon after" the flood the water recedes... perhaps he (which you seem to agree with) are mistaken, in great error , thinking this was after fourty days and nights.

There'd be NO rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded...when the waters receded gradually (as its written) after 150 days! More than enough time!

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to be one of the writers for answersingenesis.org? That web site also does a lot of hand waving and ignoring inconvenient passages in the Bible.

Still using that ignoring line again? Is that the same thing as Christians don't agree with each other and the various denominations? I suppose it is.

answersingenesis.org I don't vist that site but now that you brought it up, I am eager and willing to learn new things or perspectives.

 

[skepticalbip]

.... snip ....
This context is a sooner than the written 'soon after" the flood the water recedes... perhaps he (which you seem to agree with) are mistaken, in great error , thinking this was after fourty days and nights.

There'd be NO rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded...when the waters receded gradually (as its written) after 150 days! More than enough time!

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to be one of the writers for answersingenesis.org? That web site also does a lot of hand waving and ignoring inconvenient passages in the Bible.

Still using that ignoring line again? Is that the same thing as Christians don't agree with each other?

You didn't answer so I am still curious.

But yes, you ignore the actual description in the Bible of the firmament being a solid dome over the Earth, of it separating the 'waters above' from the Earth, of it opening to flood the Earth, etc.

And what the fuck do you mean, "... the same thing as Christians don't agree with each other?". Where did that come from and why would anyone expect for everyone in a large group to fully agree with each other?

 

[Learner]

Most? What says most came from the Waters Below? It says the fountains of the deep opened up AND the windows in the firmament were opened. Doesn't say how much came from which, far as i know.
Where do you find support for your claim, here? God of the gaps, noted.

The firmament I don't yet know the explanation being an unfathomable. So one out of many humdreds, so to speak, is fine, I'm sure you'll accept I don't know everything in the bible.

And this, then, is why i call your stance based on bullshit.
The book is very clear that the firmament is a solid dome.
The Earth is lke an inside-out snow-globe, a bubble of air that has a flat bottom (the Water Below) and a dome keeping the water out above. Except when God wants rain, and opens the windows in the firmament, to let water fall through.
But you know that's not accurate to the real world. So you edit scripture as necessary, making parts literal when you think you can get away with it, and allegory when you're forced to, so that the Bble doesn't egregiously violate reality as you accept it.

Absolutely... If it says that and that I am sure thats what it means, then I must believe in the bible, even though it is unfathomable an contradictary to what I used to think of the world. I would have to either trust in God's word or not and trust Jesus validating the OT.

 

[Learner]

Still using that ignoring line again? Is that the same thing as Christians don't agree with each other?

You didn't answer so I am still curious.

But yes, you ignore the actual description in the Bible of the firmament being a solid dome over the Earth, of it separating the 'waters above' from the Earth, of it opening to flood the Earth, etc.

And what the fuck do you mean, "... the same thing as Christians don't agree with each other?". Where did that come from and why would anyone expect for everyone in a large group to fully agree with each other?

You posted just before me. Look at quote above.

 

[skepticalbip]

answersingenesis.org I don't vist that site but now that you brought it up, I am eager and willing to learn new things or perspectives.

I would suggest that you read the actual Bible first. You don't seem to have done so yet. Once you have read the Bible then you can be aware of the passages that those on that website ignore in their hand-waving apologetics.

 

[Learner]

answersingenesis.org I don't vist that site but now that you brought it up, I am eager and willing to learn new things or perspectives.

I would suggest that you read the actual Bible first. You don't seem to have done so yet. Once you have read the Bible then you can be aware of the passages that those on that website ignore.

Well I wouldn't be a preacher preaching with a learner staus so to speak but I think even though I am a light-weight , I do funny enough seem to high-light errors in your biblical interpretation. Perhaps I'm "wrong" and you can give bible lessons to people like me.

 

[atrib]

I think it goes without saying that millions of drowned animals/humans would sink to the bottom of the flooded area where they died and eventually be covered by Flood sediment.

Sorry the bible doesn't explain this simple concept more clearly for those who can't grasp the basics.

https://www.google.com.au/search?so...75j0i10j0i22i30j33i22i29i30j33i21.hoql57dCXaI

The link you provided is a generic search for fossil fuels in Google. Why don't you read some of the links that pop up and tell us how long it takes dead animal and plant matter to be transformed into crude oil and natural gas. Hundreds of millions of years would be the right answer. Did humans exist 300 million years ago? When did the Biblical flood occur? Abut 5,000 years ago. The stupid in your post hurts.

The USGS and other state agencies have drilled hundreds of thousands of holes all over the continental US. Likewise for other parts of the world. Some of these holes go to thousands of feet in depth, and uncover material (rock) that dates back hundreds of millions of years. The geological formations underlying the surficial soils have been mapped and cataloged extensively, and these maps are available for public use at both USGS and other agency websites. For example, if I were working on a bridge project in the Summerville area of South Carolina, I could look up the geologic map for the Summerville and Dorchester quadrangles and figure out the geologic formations in that area, which is important for purposes of designing the bridge foundations which could be 150 to 200 feet deep and embedded in these materials.

Show me the quad maps and cross sections that depict the sediments that were laid down across the globe by the Biblical flood. Cite the geologic publications that describe this layer of sediment and the fossils that were found in this formation that lead us to conclude that there was a planetwide extinction event that killed all life on earth just a few thousand years ago. You can't, because no such formation exists. I am calling you out on your bullshit once again.