Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 130 (392389)
03-30-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by mpb1
03-30-2007 9:37 PM


Re: The Flood
What if God flooded that "small world" with a Flood like the one that wiped out New Orleans? Just what if???
What small world?
I doubt there'll be whole lot of evidence around to prove that happened five thousand to five million years from now. Right? So couldn't it have been possible?
Of course there would be evidence left. There would be geological evidence, biological evidence, genetic evidence.
The point is that unless God is a lying trickster there has never been a flood as described in the Bible.
Certainly it is possible that God is a liar and just faked all the evidence to fool us.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mpb1, posted 03-30-2007 9:37 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by mpb1, posted 03-30-2007 9:56 PM jar has replied
 Message 101 by grmorton, posted 04-01-2007 1:38 PM jar has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 92 of 130 (392390)
03-30-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AdminNosy
03-30-2007 9:36 PM


Re: Topic
Thanks Admin,
I was thinking about starting a new thread on the RTB comparison chart as I did over at TWeb, though it didn't get much input there: TheologyWeb Campus ). I'll probably submit one to your new topic forum.
(What I am hoping to do is to compile a simpler chart comparing evolution with the Reasons to Believe OEC Creation Model - to find the real points of conflict and spread the word among Christians that this is where our scientific research efforts could do some good Perhaps some forumers here will have an interest.)
Thanks,
Mark
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AdminNosy, posted 03-30-2007 9:36 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 93 of 130 (392392)
03-30-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
03-30-2007 9:46 PM


Re: The Flood
jar,
As a non-scientist who has no choice but to rely on the research OTHER PEOPLE have done in the field, how can I argue your point? Guess I can't
Unless there are reputable field geologists who have studied every aspect of the region and concluded that the biblical Flood COULD have happened - despite what you and others call a lack of evidence - then there's not much I can say is there?
Young earth creationists say there is evidence to support the biblical Flood, but at this moment I don't even know where else one could find supporting evidence for the Flood.
Hopefully, there is some
If not, then we Christians may end up being self-deluded after all. Who knows
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 03-30-2007 9:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 03-30-2007 10:06 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 130 (392394)
03-30-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by mpb1
03-30-2007 9:56 PM


Re: The Flood
Unless there are reputable field geologists who have studied every aspect of the region and concluded that the biblical Flood COULD have happened - despite what you and others call a lack of evidence - then there's not much I can say is there?
It is NOT simply a lack of evidence. That implies that it might be there but no one has seen it yet. It is that evidence that MUST be there if the Biblical Flood were real is not there.
When you do an experiment one key thing is making predictions.
If the flood happened we would see certain things.
We look for those things.
They are not there.
That is Positive evidence that the flood did not happen.
The idea of a Biblical Flood is refuted.
Young earth creationists say there is evidence to support the biblical Flood, but at this moment I don't even know where else one could find supporting evidence for the Flood.
Yes they do, but not ONE, not a single one, of there alleged evidences stands up to examination. Young Earth Creationists are simply wrong.
If not, then we Christians may end up being self-deluded after all. Who knows
What do you mean "we Christians?"
It is not Christians that support the myth of the Biblical Flood but only the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by mpb1, posted 03-30-2007 9:56 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
lao tzu
Junior Member (Idle past 6206 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 03-31-2007


Message 95 of 130 (392421)
03-31-2007 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by mpb1
03-30-2007 9:37 PM


Re: The Flood
Greetings, Mark,
The possibility you consider here is quite close to what I personally believe to be the truth of the matter, though as you might suspect, I feel no need to include the existence of any gods into the story.
My principle objection to Glenn's theory is that it neglects the simplest explanation, and in doing so violates the principle of parsimony that lies at the heart of the scientific method. In order to preserve a biblical claim, he rejects the clear evidence of far more mundane origins for the biblical flood story. More in a moment.
I find the arithmetic of his proposed inundation suspect as well, as it seems to imply the ark traveling at an average speed of something less than 7 miles a day on the crest of the inundation (else why would it fetch up against Turkey at all), making such a vessel seem unnecessary to me. They could have walked there faster. 2500 miles from the straits of Gibraltar to Turkey in 365 days. Do the math.
Distance ref: http://concise.britannica.com/...e-9109732/Mediterranean-Sea
Of course, as the area to be inundated was not a concrete-lined channel, the speed of encroachment toward Turkey would vary as the area for expansion increased. I would expect a higher rate of travel for the leading edge of the flood during the earliest stages, and a lower rate toward the end.
A more serious criticism arises from the lack of any method to carry the tale across 5 million years, call it 250,000 generations of pre-literacy with no assurance of even the capability of an oral tradition.
But the most damning evidence against this theory is the pre-existence of achingly similar predecessors of the biblical flood tale in the excavated writings of the region, tales which incorporate aspects of the flood tale in the bible found nowhere else in the world, indicating a common literary tradition. There is no need for divine intervention to see this tale carried from the Mesopotamian flood plain ” where we know it existed ” west and south into the region of ancient Israel with no more than the minor variations we see between the other intermediates stretching back from Canaan and Babylonia into ancient Sumeria.
Against this origin, we pit Glenn's Mediterranean (GM5M) flood tale of 5 million years ago (GM5M) and apply the principle of parsimony.
Ask yourself what is the easiest method for this tale to have been incorporated into the Jewish sacred texts. Was it carried along by means of written records from an origin in Mesopotamia over the course of no more than a thousand years? Or was it "remembered" across 250,000 generations by a pre-literate society that sprang up in the wake of a cataclysm, until finally being recorded in a language that did not exist at the time of the earliest written incarnations of the tale.
Glenn has made it his mission to uncover evidence for this 5 Mya hypothesis, and knowing Glenn, I'm sure he'll uncover interesting information. The chances that he will uncover verification for a Mediterranean origin for the flood tale are infinitesimal. There is no means of promulgating this tale across such a span of generations.
The issue turns on what is to be demonstrated. Is it sufficient to explain the inclusion of this tale, or must we also support the accuracy of this tale? In comparison to other similar texts of the region, this last criterion ” accuracy ” is unprecedented. Worse, it is the equivalent of including as evidence what should rightly be investigated as a separate hypothesis. Absent this claim of accuracy, there is nothing remaining to explain. The evidence already exists pointing to a Mesopotamian origin. We have the chain of provenance.
Glenn is free to advance alternative explanations for the inclusion of this tale in the Hebrew sacred texts. That is science. He is not free, however, to offer a claim requiring unnecessary assumptions without showing the need to do so. That is the principle of parsimony. We already have an explanation that works. It is sufficient to explain the evidence, that evidence being the inclusion of the Noachian flood tale within the Hebrew sacred texts.
From here, we could continue to ask how this tale came to be. Again, scientific methodology requires we seek out the simplest explanation. It is a tale of a great flood and a boat that survived it. Most legends have roots in fact, and most legends incorporate both embellishment and syncretism.
Now consider the Mesopotamian flood plain, the point of likely origin. Dig anywhere and you'll find evidence of floods. We know of locally catastrophic floods that struck individual cities during the third millenium BCE. Anyone living in these cities would be aware of this. The culture of the time included large scale digging to keep open the system of irrigation canals. The evidence of major flooding evident from the layers of silt must have been widespread. This would be enough to birth flood tales.
With no way of dating these layers, there would be nothing to keep these flood tales from growing into one another, until they had became a "great flood" tale. Add in the tale of a local survivor aboard a river barge ” barges are also known to have existed ” and the last bar to a Mesopotamian origin falls away.
Glenn's objection to this explanation is that it does not preserve the accuracy of the Noachian flood tale in the bible. Science doesn't care about this presupposition. The Mesopotamian origin is simpler, so it wins. That's how science works. If his theory is to gain traction in the scientific community, it must overcome this deficit.
Now there is no particular reason for Glenn to seek to win his case within the scientific community. But if that is not his aim, he is not engaging in science.
As ever, Jesse

There is no lao tzu.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mpb1, posted 03-30-2007 9:37 PM mpb1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-31-2007 6:23 AM lao tzu has replied
 Message 106 by grmorton, posted 04-01-2007 2:41 PM lao tzu has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 96 of 130 (392423)
03-31-2007 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by lao tzu
03-31-2007 5:03 AM


Mediterranean vs. Mesopotamian flood
In order to preserve a biblical claim, he rejects the clear evidence of far more mundane origins for the biblical flood story.
While I am inclined towards the "far more mundane origins" (and perhaps even Glenn Morton is), it is his here effort to fuse worldly history with Biblical claims. A real, major flood that happened at about the same time as earliest hominid history.
Now, I don't recall what Glenn's opinions about the ark are, but I'm very much inclined to think the whole ark concept is silly. Would all (or even much) of humanity and the Earth's creatures of that time be living within the Mediterranean basin? I don't think so. Also, for the ark to land on Mt. Ararat (Turkey) would require much more than the Mediterranean flood.
A more serious criticism arises from the lack of any method to carry the tale across 5 million years, call it 250,000 generations of pre-literacy with no assurance of even the capability of an oral tradition.
Now, in the context of a powerful creator God, I don't see this as a problem. God could have relayed the history of the flood to Moses lo those millions of years later (I'm serious, this isn't the sarcasm mode).

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by lao tzu, posted 03-31-2007 5:03 AM lao tzu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by lao tzu, posted 03-31-2007 4:52 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
lao tzu
Junior Member (Idle past 6206 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 03-31-2007


Message 97 of 130 (392467)
03-31-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Minnemooseus
03-31-2007 6:23 AM


Re: Mediterranean vs. Mesopotamian flood
Greetings, Minnemooseus,
Minnemooseus writes:
Also, for the ark to land on Mt. Ararat (Turkey) would require much more than the Mediterranean flood.
Speaking out of place, but being familiar with Glenn's arguments, if the bible says there's an ark, he believes there's an ark. While his literal interpretation differs from others, he remains a literalist.
In answer to your specific objection, Glenn identifies Ararat not with an individual mountain but with the entire mountain range, a mountain range that does indeed extend right into the Mediterranean basin if we were to view it with the Mediterranean removed. There is no need for him to allow the water under the ark to "flow uphill," in the sense of his objection to a Mesopotamian flood.
Now, in the context of a powerful creator God, I don't see this as a problem. God could have relayed the history of the flood to Moses lo those millions of years later (I'm serious, this isn't the sarcasm mode).
In the context of a powerful creator God, the whole shebang could have been zapped into being last Tuesday afternoon just after tea time. Since the universe gives evidence that the conditions just before tea time would have naturally given rise to the conditions just after tea time, though, the "Tuesday tea time" hypothesis is an example of "unnecessarily multiplying entities."
We don't do that in science. We don't do it because it gets in the way, because explanations are valued for their ability to "get to the point." Two step solutions that accomplish no more than one step solutions don't survive in the marketplace of ideas.
If we are interested in nothing more than determining how the Noachian tale came to be included in the Hebrew sacred texts, we have no need to proceed further. It was an interesting problem, but it's solved. We knew the tale was there. We have explained its presence. We are done.
But we have done more than this. We have explained the presence of these prior tales using known methodologies. Glenn's Mediterranean origin does not explain these facts, and does not contradict these methodologies. It pays the price of unnecessarily multiplied entities and in return yields less explanation. As science, it is a failure.
What benefit can there be in this, then? We get an accurate account in the bible at the cost of losing the very possibility of anything other than divine intervention as the creative cause of these pre-existing legends. That puts us back further than we started.
As ever, Jesse

There is no lao tzu.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-31-2007 6:23 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 6197 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 98 of 130 (392570)
04-01-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Equinox
03-30-2007 12:00 PM


Re: Note
Equinox wrote:
I think that we all need to acknowledge something here, though I’m sure many of us already recognize it - and that is the fact that Glen Morton’s idea of a local flood 5 million years ago has at least a tenuous grasp on reality, and actually uses evidence for support. Sure, we can discuss the comparison between this 5 million, Local flood (I’ll call it 5L), as compared to the idea that the Genesis story is simply a fabrication with no basis in reality - in which case 5L may not clearly win.
But that’s very different from comparing 5L to the idea that a flood occurred literally as described in Genesis, after the rise of, say, language or such. In that case, 5L is clearly and irrefutably superior,
Thank you for the kind words. You raise an interesting set of points.
1. if the Bible is not meant to communicate anything real, then of course, my view of the flood would fail. But there would be other implications(both related)
1a one could question the reality of any theology therein because if there is nothing of reality communicated, then the theology equally wouldn't be real.
1b. If there is no verification of the observational part of the Biblical message, and the same is concluded for the message of other religions, then one could indeed conclude that religion is one grand self-delusion.
And when you then point out that MPB is bringing out the question of miracles when observation fails him, you are correct that one should discern whether one is discussing a flood which is totally miraculous or one with observational evidence.
If the flood is totally miraculous, (and with a miraculous god could have taken place exactly as described leaving absolutely no evidence) then there is really no reason to expect any observational evidence to show that a miracle occurred. We christians don't go around arguing for science to support the changing of water to wine--it was a miracle and we simply accept it. If the flood is a miracle, this should be our approach.
But if we think there would be observational evidence resulting from such a flood, then we can't call upon miracle everytime observation fails to support our view of how the flood happens. To do that is to make up miracles for God to perform in the past in order to support our strange ideas in the present. In other words, to make God perform miracles when we lack observational support for our pet flood theory, we are in effect making God dance to our tune.
Making God do our bidding is a bad thing. We are supposed to do His.

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Equinox, posted 03-30-2007 12:00 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Equinox, posted 04-02-2007 2:46 PM grmorton has not replied

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 6197 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 99 of 130 (392589)
04-01-2007 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mpb1
03-30-2007 8:45 PM


Re: The Flood
MPB1 wrote:
Someone sent me an interesting article from Newsweek (March 19, 2007 issue), which I uploaded to my site here:
OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains
Mark, don't try to get your science out of Newsweek or any other non-scientific publication. The reporters too often don't know enough to know what they are hearing and so, they then miscommunicate things to the average person. One stupidity this article has is
"Although erectus spread across Eurasia between 2 million and 1 million years ago, DNA makes clear that the species was almost certainly a dead end and not our ancestor, as some scientists had argued."Sharon Begley, The Evolution Revolution," Newsweek, March 19, 2007, p. 58
Given that H. erectus and H. ergaster are morophological overlaps, and hundreds of our nuclear genes come from that time period, it is
ridiculous to say that H. erectus, wasn't our ancestor.
And one thing that started out in the press and has gotten way out of hand is FOXP2, which is claimed to be a language gene and the article makes the same blunder. FOXP2 is a regulator gene, it regulates the expression of lots and lots of other genes. It in and of itself does not affect language. It affects the expression of some genes that do affect languge. http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/foxp2.pdf
The other thing you are ignoring is the many indications in the article that my position--that of an ancient humanity (humanity not defined by looks, but by behavior) is closer to being correct than the ridiculous views of Hugh Ross.
The article is correct that the earth became drier about 6 million years ago. Actually it was just Europe and AFrica that this happened to and that was in part because of the closure of the Tethyan ocean as India and Africa collided into Asia. The Mediterranean is the last remnant of that ocean and its evaporation, took away a water source for the rains. Note that the hominids arose at this time.
Now, the Newsweek article mentions HAR1 but they don't tell you what is really important to this theological debate. To get that you must read the original scientific article in Nature. Here is what the Newsweek article relates:
"Last summer scientists discovered a gene called HAR1 (for human accelerated region) that is present in animals from chickens to chimps to people. It had changed in only two of its 118 chemical 'letters' from 310 million years ago (when the lineages of chickens and chimps split) to 5 million years ago. But 18 letters changed in the (relative) blink of an eye since the human lineage split from chimps', Katherine Pollard of the University of California Davis, and her colleagues reported. That high rate of change is a singe of a gene whose evolution keeps conferring advantages on those who carry it, perhaps starting with Australopithecus."
"The brain, more than any other organ, may have reaped those genetic advantages. HAR1 reaches a peak of activity from the seventh to ninth week in gestation in humans, apparently spurring brain growth. And it is plentiful in cells that create the six layers of neurons in the human cortex. 'HAR1 is present in neurons that play a role in tghe geometry and layout of the cortex,' says Pollard. It likely helped the cortexes of our ancestors develop the elaborate folds charactgeristic of a complex brain." Sharon Begley, The Evolution Revolution," Newsweek, March 19, 2007, p. 55-56
The article in Nature tells us something very very important for our debate, which means if you don't read the scientific literature you get a stilted view of things. What the Nature article says is (note the bold)
Evidence from preliminary resequencing of a 6-kilobase (kb) region containing HAR1 shows levels of polymorphism and a positive skew in the frequency spectrum that are typical of European samples, suggesting that a recent selective sweep in this region of the genome is unlikely. Thus, the changes in HAR1 clearly occurred on the human lineage, but probably took place more than 1 Myr ago.” “Katherine S. Pollard et al, “An RNA Gene Expressed During Cortical Development Evolved Rapidly in Humans,” Nature, 443(2006): 167-168
And since Neanderthals and humans split from each other about 600,000 years ago, it means that Neanderthals had the HAR1 gene, like us--the thing which makes our brains. So, Neanderthals were much more similar to us than you want to admit, which means that humanity goes way back in time, and that means that if you are going to have a flood that has a prayer of matching reality, it has to be millions of years ago.
If it shows one thing, it's that there's a lot of mixed information that's being derived from the available evidence - and the conclusions keep changing!
Or a layman who doesn't understand what is being said. One can't rule out that as a viable explanation. Lets take another example from the Newsweek article. They discuss prodynorphin, a chemical which speeds up signal processing in the human brain. The article says.
This pattern of gene activity, it appears, began emerging when Australopithecus species did.Sharon Begley, The Evolution Revolution," Newsweek, March 19, 2007, p. 56
What you fail to note is the implications for australopithecines and fail to ask the questin, how much of this stuff is required for someone to be considered behaviourally human? Where in our lineage does one become spiritually aware?
If you look at the PREDICTION COMPARISON CHART compiled by Hugh Ross / Reasons to Believe here:
HugeDomains.com
it becomes even more clear that ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE PROVING ANYTHING CONCLUSIVELY ABOUT ORIGINS.
If you look at that chart, most of the 'predictions' are actually trash. "Evidence for ongoing star and planet ormation and for star extinction will increase." Duh! Isn't that just equivalent to saying our technology to see these things will get better?
"Astronomer's measurements of the universe's age will become more accurate, and more consistent, and more certainly fixed on about 14 billion years." If it is 12 billion or 15 billion, Is the RTB model thereby false?
But if science can only take us so far, then as Christians, we can either reject the literalness of the biblical stories, OR we can assume that if science says that something like the Flood would have been IMPOSSIBLE any other way, then it seems safe to assume THAT IF THE STORIES ARE LITERAL, either science will eventually "prove" the stories to be possible, or we'll have to assume God intervened miraculously.
The minute one grabs for God's miracle to save his pet flood theory, is the minute he has become a Biblical author--re-writing the Scripture to make it say what he needs it to say.

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mpb1, posted 03-30-2007 8:45 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 6197 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 100 of 130 (392591)
04-01-2007 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AdminNosy
03-30-2007 9:36 PM


Re: Topic
This was written to MPB1, I believe
The material you have linked to is not particularly on topic here.
Some of the hominid data is relevant to the question of why one must look for the geologic evidence of the flood at an older time. Geology is 4 dimensional and if one looks for a certain event at the wrong time, then the evidence will ether be lacking or misinterpreted to force geologic data into the wrong slipper.
I would also note the original definition of fossil--anything dug up and by that definition, hominid fossils are everybit as much geologic evidence as are the fossils of paleontology used in index fossils. At least that would be my interpretation as a professional geoscientist.
Edited by grmorton, : No reason given.

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AdminNosy, posted 03-30-2007 9:36 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 6197 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 101 of 130 (392595)
04-01-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
03-30-2007 9:46 PM


Re: The Flood
jar wrote:
Of course there would be evidence left. There would be geological evidence, biological evidence, genetic evidence.
The point is that unless God is a lying trickster there has never been a flood as described in the Bible.
Certainly it is possible that God is a liar and just faked all the evidence to fool us.
I would agree that there would be evidence.
"Pleistocene glacial outburst floods were released from ice-
dammed lakes of the Altay Mountains, south-central Siberia.
The Kuray-Chuja lake system yielded peak floods in excess
of 1 x 10^6 m^3 s^-1 and as great as 18 x 10^6 m^3 s^-1. The
phenomenally high bed shear stresses and stream powers
generated in these flows produced a main-channel, coarse-
grained facies of coarse gravel in (1) foreset-bedded bars
as much as 200 m high and several kilometers long, and (2)
degradational, boulder-capped river terraces. Giant current
ripples, 50 to 150 m in spacing, composed of pebble and
cobble gravel, are locally abundant. The whole sedimentary
assemblage is very similar to that of the Channeled
Scabland, produced by the Pleistocene Missoula Floods of
western North America." ~ A. N. Rudoy and V. R. Baker,
"Sedimentary Effects of Cataclysmic Later Pleistocene
Glacial Outburst Flooding, Altay Mountains, Siberia,"
Sedimentary Geology, 85(1993:53-62, p. 53
But, your dogmatism that there is no Biblical flood is based upon
1. the assumption that the young-earth/global flood interpretation of scripture is the only way that scripture can be interpreted.
2. that the anthropologically universal flood occured when the young-earthers say it did--

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 03-30-2007 9:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 04-01-2007 1:57 PM grmorton has replied
 Message 103 by mpb1, posted 04-01-2007 2:00 PM grmorton has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 102 of 130 (392600)
04-01-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by grmorton
04-01-2007 1:38 PM


Re: The Flood
But, your dogmatism that there is no Biblical flood is based upon
1. the assumption that the young-earth/global flood interpretation of scripture is the only way that scripture can be interpreted.
2. that the anthropologically universal flood occured when the young-earthers say it did--<6000 age'.
Not at all. I simply take what is written in the Bible. The Bible story says it was a world-wide flood.
The Bible story says it was during the lifespan of a specific individual.
The Bible story says that all life on earth except that which was on one specific boat died.
Now if you approach it as you have laid out so far, it seems to me that all you have done is throw out everything in the Bible story.
Okay.
I don't have a problem with what you are doing.
Enjoy.
But it seems to be totally unrelated to the Bible story anyway.
As to your three assertions of what you think I think, well, you be wrong on all three of them. LOL

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by grmorton, posted 04-01-2007 1:38 PM grmorton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by grmorton, posted 04-01-2007 3:05 PM jar has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 103 of 130 (392601)
04-01-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by grmorton
04-01-2007 1:38 PM


Re: The Flood
Just FYI... To Glenn and Jesse and the other folks who've contributed to this thread, I certainly appreciate the dialog I just have nothing to add to it at the moment, unfortunately. I want the Flood story to be true. I want every word in the Bible to be true. But as a non-geologist, I have no idea how to prove it is true, and geologists have apparently not found evidence to prove that it's true.
As Jesse pointed out, non-Christians say the story was derived from another story. So this may be a case where Christians can either choose to believe the story is just "biblical myth" or we can hold out hope that it will one day prove to be true. The only other option I'm aware of is believing that the Flood is a complete fabrication, and is therefore evidence that the Bible is not the Word of God. So I'll have to go with option one or two
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by grmorton, posted 04-01-2007 1:38 PM grmorton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 04-01-2007 2:23 PM mpb1 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 104 of 130 (392604)
04-01-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by mpb1
04-01-2007 2:00 PM


Re: The Flood
As Jesse pointed out, non-Christians say the story was derived from another story.
Not just non-Christians.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by mpb1, posted 04-01-2007 2:00 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by mpb1, posted 04-01-2007 2:33 PM jar has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 105 of 130 (392605)
04-01-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
04-01-2007 2:23 PM


Re: The Flood
I was wondering about that jar...
Are you a Christian?
I know you used the label, "the Christian Cult of Ignorance," so I wasn't sure. If you are a Christian, are you saying that those who believe Genesis 1-11 is meant to be understood literally are ignorant?
If so, I guess that means you believe those who read those chapters as allegory are much wiser?
I participated in a few debates on this at TheologyWeb. Because of the literal, historical, biographical nature of the text, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to read the text as anything but literal. To me, the genealogies rule out allegory. I believe some of the language used could be non-literal, but not the entire narrative. That just seems absurd.
I'm working on a new site CreationCrisis.com, and have the first page draft up here: OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains where I'm trying to cover the various options that Christians have in interpreting Genesis 1-11.
(Anyone can feel free to e-mail any thoughts on the page, since it would be off-topic here. My e-mail is on the page above. A new thread on a related topic is in the "Proposed Topics" category now.)
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 04-01-2007 2:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 04-01-2007 2:44 PM mpb1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024