Crazy Bible Stories

[atrib]

I thought my response to your post #96 was suffice pointing out where I was with previous discussion - not a good job I now see, you missed it.

Besides ... regarding so called exposed - if it were the case I was "professing to know all while not knowing a thing" .. I could find various answers on google and post it.

Or... I simply update (which iwould be the case) on what's current on mountains and post it. It doesn't conflict with the whale-bone post.

What use is that logically (asking how mountains are formed) to your argument?

Still waiting for you to explain the following:
1. Why is there no evidence in the geologic column consistent with a planetwide flood from a few thousand years ago? Or if you believe otherwise, show us the geologic maps and cross sections that describe the sediment from the flood. Remember, you did assert that geological findings would confirm the presence of a Biblical flood related layer complete with the fossils of living things that were killed in the flood.
2. Why is there no evidence for an extreme bottleneck in the genomes of all things that would be consistent with a planetwide flood from a few thousand years ago?
3.You also asserted that scientific dating methods were unreliable, and that fossils found on mountains were somehow relevant to your skepticism. But you haven't explained why that is the case, despite me asking you to do so, and you stating you would get back to me.

I know you can't answer these questions, because you evidently don't know much, if anything about these subjects. All you do is make up shit. You have a right to stay ignorant, even if you choose to call yourself Learner. But stop pretending that you are actually interested in any of these things, and that you will do research/learn and get back to the discussion when that is clearly not true. You don't have to sacrifice your intellectual integrity to have faith in your god. You don't have to make up shit to participate in a discussion. "I have faith even though I can't explain everything" is a perfectly acceptable position to hold, and people will respect you for your honesty, instead of calling out stuff you post as nonsense.

 

[Learner]

Better is that we know that there is no solid dome over the Earth and no 'water above' for it to keep out. Learner's problem is that he is attempting to act the Biblical apologist but doesn't know the Biblical cosmology.

I find it ironic that Biblical apologists continually add to or subtract from what is in the Bible in their apologetics even though, according to Revelations, such amendments will condemn them.

Proverbs is a bit less severe. There is just warning not to add to god's words "lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar."

The irony is ....

I believe in the flood! No words added or taken away!

As I recall, you claimed that more water came from 'below' which the Bible does not say. Now you are saying that the water went back into the Earth (which the Bible does not say). You need to understand Biblical cosmology to understand where the Bible says the waters came from and went. This would mean that you either have to reject the current understanding of the universe or conclude that the writers of the Bible didn't understand the universe and were just doing their best to describe what they thought it was but failed.

Understand biblical cosmology and reject the current understanding hmmm. I read what it says but I 'don't' understand (can't comprehend ) if it IS exactly what the bible means and... that there are possible alternative explanations - obviously because of the literal confliction. Some Jews/ Rabi's and Christians believe Raqiya (firmament) means exspanse (I've heard two versions but still under study and investigation by many). But there's no rejection of the firmament or science for that matter.

Edit: Ah Lion ..you beat me to it! Espanse

 

[Lion IRC]

As I recall, you claimed that more water came from 'below'

Learner didn't claim that. The bible did.

which the Bible does not say.

Yes it does. Genesis 7:11
"...all the springs of the great deep burst open"

And science confirms same.
https://beginningandend.com/scientists-confirm-biblical-account-of-the-fountains-of-the-deep/

 

[Learner]

Atrib, take it as you will, I'm going to have to dissapoint you for a little while, .

Back later.

 

[atrib]

As I recall, you claimed that more water came from 'below'

Learner didn't claim that. The bible did.

which the Bible does not say.

Yes it does. Genesis 7:11
"...all the springs of the great deep burst open"

And science confirms same.
https://beginningandend.com/scientists-confirm-biblical-account-of-the-fountains-of-the-deep/

Did you actually read the page you cited? This is the primary scientific excerpt they cited:

An international team of scientists led by Graham Pearson, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Arctic Resources at the U of A, has discovered the first-ever sample of a mineral called ringwoodite. Analysis of the mineral shows it contains a significant amount of water — 1.5 per cent of its weight — a finding that confirms scientific theories about vast volumes of water trapped 410 to 660 kilometres beneath Earth’s surface, between the upper and lower mantle.
“This sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area,” said Pearson, a professor in the Faculty of Science, whose findings were published March 13 in Nature. “That particular zone in the Earth, the transition zone, might have as much water as all the world’s oceans put together.”
Ringwoodite is a form of the mineral peridot, believed to exist in large quantities under high pressures in the transition zone. Ringwoodite has been found in meteorites but, until now, no terrestrial sample has ever been unearthed because scientists haven’t been able to conduct fieldwork at extreme depths.

The scientific article the creationist webpage referenced actually contains no reference to a Biblical flood. They are discussing a specific type of mineral that is found at depths of 410 to 660 Km BENEATH the crust that contains about 1.5% water by weight. This water is bound to the mineral and is not free to move about. This is just like your "fossil fuels prove Biblical flood" nonsense. Pure handwaving, no substance. An attempt to deceive, not an attempt to engage.

 

[Lion IRC]

Learner can attempt to engage if he wants.
As for me I don't think there's any point engaging with people who spitefully use the negative rep system after feigning an interest in sincere dialogue.
Neither do I think anyone benefits from engaging with someone they have labelled a troll.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As I recall, you claimed that more water came from 'below'

Learner didn't claim that. The bible did.

which the Bible does not say.

Yes it does. Genesis 7:11
"...all the springs of the great deep burst open"

As they would if there is a great amount of rain. Happens all the time. All the springs and aquifers are fed by precipitation from above. The ice from the ice ages didn't come from springs or lakes, it fell as precipitation. Hurricane Ivan in my neck of the woods did exactly that. Water was coming out of places that had never seen springs before. Hillsides were sloughing off. It was because the ground was saturated with rainwater.

So are we back to rain again? Where did all that rainwater disappear to?

 

[Lion IRC]

Back where it came from.
The hydrological cycle.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back where it came from.
The hydrological cycle.

So it rained enough in the Noah Fable to top Earth's highest peaks. Noah survived the maelstrom on his magic wooden boat, and then the rainwater which covered the entire globe just disappeared back to the original sea level. - into the hydrological cycle?

Very nice. Pure Velikovskyism.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's more than enough water to cover the entire surface of the earth.
Average depth of ocean minus average height of land above sea level equals....?

The Noachian Flood account doesn't have God summoning up previously non-existent water out of nowhere. It holds that already extant water was moved from A to B

 

[Lion IRC]

The early human population was likely centred in a relatively small geographic area close to sea level which, if flooded, would all be wiped out.

But even IF a small handful of humans were living on a mountain top on the opposite side of the globe far away from Noah's Ark, a huge tidal swell or tsunami could reach them too.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There's more than enough water to cover the entire surface of the earth.
Average depth of ocean minus average height of land above sea level equals....?

The Noachian Flood account doesn't have God summoning up previously non-existent water out of nowhere. It holds that already extant water was moved from A to B

I'm not the one arguing that it came up out of the ground and then magically drained away. I'm not the one arguing for hypnotized animals and magic wooden boats.

Now you're claiming that the water just moved from one place to another and filled the globe. Must have been a very slow moving 30,000 foot tsunami. More magic.

I suppose that the atmosphere just magically displaced up to 30,000 feet too so no one was oxygen or heat deprived. Beautiful stuff there.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Earth has a circumference of approximately 25,000 miles. According to the Noah Fable the earth became dry again after 370 days. Therefore the tsunami speed and height can be calculated. 30,000 feet of water which rose at a rate of 725 feet per day then circled the globe in 370 days. So the giant tsunami moved at a speed of 1000 miles per hour around the earth.

That's a real wow story. Tsunamis a pittance that tall and moving much slower do horrendous damage. Noah sure was a good boat builder.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm sure you agree that there's enough water.
Now, add 1 omnipotent Being and voila!

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm sure you agree that there's enough water.
Now, add 1 omnipotent Being and voila!

View attachment 24440

No. There is not enough water to cover the Earth to 30,000 feet continuously for well over a hundred days as described in the Bible. The Bible didn't say that there was a gigantic tsunami that swept around the world temporarily flooding the mountains then vanishing for most of the day until it swept by again.

Oh, by the way in case you are confused (which is quite likely), that image is not to scale. Earth's water would not be noticable on the limbs of the planet if the oceans were shown to scale. The tidal bulge as shown in that image is several hundred miles high.

For the Flood story to make sense, you have to accept the Biblical understanding of cosmology to be true.

 

[Lion IRC]

...No. There is not enough water to cover the Earth to 30,000 feet continuously for well over a hundred days as described in the Bible.

It doesn't say that ALL land was ALL continuously covered for the ENTIRE duration of the Flood by a constant (average) ocean depth. It doesn't specify the duration of mountain top flooding.

...The Bible didn't say that there was a gigantic tsunami that swept around the world temporarily flooding the mountains then vanishing for most of the day until it swept by again.

It doesn't say there wasn't.
If you want to use an argument from silence so can I.
There's nothing in Genesis 7/8 which says the water was 15 cubits above ALL mountains for a specified period.

...Oh, by the way in case you are confused (which is quite likely), that image is not to scale.

So what?
You can't see any mountain tops in that picture either because they are likewise tiny compared to the relative (mirror-finish) smoothness of the earths surface.

...The tidal bulge as shown in that image is several hundred miles high.

Gee. I guess they really DID exaggerate the scale. Look how big the moon is.
Hmmm. Can't trust anything science says these days.
BTW. Your infographic depicting the size of Sheol is way off!

...For the Flood story to make sense, you have to accept the Biblical understanding of cosmology to be true.

Agreed. That's why I devoutly adhere to the biblical understand of cosmology.

 

[skepticalbip]

...For the Flood story to make sense, you have to accept the Biblical understanding of cosmology to be true.

Agreed. That's why I devoutly adhere to the biblical understand of cosmology.

If you honestly believe that the universe is as described in the Bible:


... then any further conversation is useless. But I really have to wonder why you would suggest the flood was a tsunami if you don't believe the world looks anything like the image you posted.

 

[Lion IRC]

I can't believe you have trouble with the idea of tsunamis as part of a global flood event.

Massive shifts in pressure (weight) on the earths surface, earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides. Ever heard of a place called La Palma in the Canary Islands?

 

[skepticalbip]

I can't believe you have trouble with the idea of tsunamis as part of a global flood event.

Massive shifts in pressure (weight) on the earths surface, earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides. Ever heard of a place called La Palma in the Canary Islands?

I never said that tsunamis can't cause flooding... they certainly do. However, the flooding they cause is local flooding and is nothing like 'The Flood' described in the Bible. The Bible flood covered the world, was caused by rain and 'waters below' gushing up, and Noah floated on it for months. Noah's ark wasn't sitting on the land then suddenly hit a gigantic wave.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well since there has and only ever will be one Noachian Flood it stands to reason that they wouldn't cause anything like that event.