Problems with Global Flood

[Thrinaxodon]

There are many, many, many problems with the idea of a Global Flood, too
many to delve into given the time I have to write this (and that time is
pretty limited, because, well, I've got a life that remarkably isn't all
USENET). Let's focus on number one:

There are so many inconsistencies in the world to have been made by the
Global Flood, let's take a look at the prime example, the Grand Canyon,
you see, one component of the Grand Canyon is the Kaibab Sandstone,
which if a Global Flood were to have occurred, would've been turned into
mush, that's not what we see. In fact, the Kaibab sandstone contains
many details that would've been destroyed by a global deluge, such as
the intricate series of footprints made by a lizard like creature, or
the sand dune formations, that's not what we would expect. Not only
that, the Grand Canyon winds like a river, not something we would expect
in a flood.

Another problem is how did the fish survive, freshwater and marine? Many
saltwater fish cannot survive in freshwater due to the lesser salinity,
and vice versa, and then, given the huge currents as required by some
creationists, the fish would've suffocated because of the huge amount of
dirt and mud in the water (even as little as 30% of dirt in the water
can suffocate fish), so how did the fish survive? The fish would've
certainly be thrown back and forth, colliding with the huge amounts of
rock that would've gotten thrown all over the place, so again, how did
the fish survive?

Creationists say the Geological column was made by the flood, and they
say that lesser organisms can be found at the bottom and more developed
ones at higher levels, but that's not what we find. You see, in a
typical North American Eocene age rock formation, one can find
crocodiles, fish, marsupials, creodonts, dichobunids, horses, and
primates. Not only that, but one can find snails, insects, plants, less
developed organisms (such as the snails and insects) are found with
supposed higher developed organisms, such as horses and primates.


--
"I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
me." - Cao Cao

http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org

[Steady Eddie]

Certainly, the Flood account leaves many unanswered questions.
The truth is, nobody knows how the Flood influenced the geology or biology of the earth, or what the
earth would look like now if there was no Flood.
We'll just have to wait and see.
To claim it is impossible is an article of Atheistic faith.
To believe the Bible narrative is likewise an article of Christian faith.
Touche'.

[Thrinaxodon]

In other words, "Flooddidit".

[J. J. Lodder]

File under: You just can't believe your eyes,

Jan

[Burkhard]

I thought it was the result of, you know, observing actual floods that
keep happening all the time, and observing what characteristic patterns
they always leave behind.

And then not finding the very same patterns on a global scale, at a
single time.

[Jonathan]

On 4/29/2016 3:52 PM, Thrinaxodon wrote:

> There are many, many, many problems with the idea of a Global Flood, too
> many to delve into given the time I have to write this (and that time is
> pretty limited, because, well, I've got a life that remarkably isn't all
> USENET). Let's focus on number one:

Would you agree with the following criticisms listing
just the most glaring problems with the notion of
a global flood?



(c) There are also certain scientific considerations which
oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal.


First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to
have been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe
connected with the beginning of the ice-age, or the
geological deluge, must not be connected with the Biblical.

Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge,
as described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the
data furnished in the Biblical account. If the surface of
the earth, in round numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square
kilometres, and if the elevation of the highest mountains
reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the
Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to about
4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres.

Now, a forty days' rain, ten times more copious than the
most violent rainfall known to us, will raise the level
of the sea only about 800 metres; since the height to be
attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to
be filled by unknown sources amounting to a height
of more than 8000 metres, in order to raise the water
to the level of the greatest mountains.

Thirdly, if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal,
the sea water and the fresh water would mix to such an
extent that neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water
animals could have lived in the mixture without a miracle.

Fourthly, there are serious difficulties connected with the
animals in the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal:
How were they brought to Noah from the remote regions of the
earth in which they lived? How could eight persons take care
of such an array of beasts? Where did they obtain the food
necessary for all the animals? How could the arctic animals
live with those of the torrid zone for a whole year and under
the same roof?


The above was from the Catholic Encyclopedia in...1908.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm


"The fact that the dove is said to have found "the waters
. . . upon the whole earth", and that Noah "saw that the
face of the earth was dried", leaves the impression that
the inspired writer uses the word "earth" in the restricted
sense of "land"."


In other words when the Bible says 'Earth' they don't mean
the entire Earth, but just the land near where Noah lived.

A local flood.

It's no wonder the science minded ridicule religion since
most haven't any religious education. It's like listening
to someone ridicule calculus without having any knowledge
about mathematics.

Maybe religion should ridicule science for once believing
the Earth was flat? That is essentially what your post
is doing.

[Thrinaxodon]

Jonathan wrote:
> On 4/29/2016 3:52 PM, Thrinaxodon wrote:
>
>> There are many, many, many problems with the idea of a Global Flood, too
>> many to delve into given the time I have to write this (and that time is
>> pretty limited, because, well, I've got a life that remarkably isn't all
>> USENET). Let's focus on number one:
>
>
>
> Would you agree with the following criticisms listing
> just the most glaring problems with the notion of
> a global flood?

Yes, nothing says that the Religious are so scientifically-dead as to be
worthless, I`m only attacking the Literalists among us, not the
Catholics (or at least the authors of the Catholic Encyclopaedia).

>
>
>
> (c) There are also certain scientific considerations which
> oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal.
>
>
> First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to
> have been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe
> connected with the beginning of the ice-age, or the
> geological deluge, must not be connected with the Biblical.

There were many gigantic floods at the Pleistocene-Holecene transition,
many Aboriginal Australians tell tales of hunting grounds now covered by
the sea, where it was flooded in time immemorial.

>
> Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge,
> as described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the
> data furnished in the Biblical account. If the surface of
> the earth, in round numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square
> kilometres, and if the elevation of the highest mountains
> reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the
> Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to about
> 4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres.

Where the Hell did you get that statistic?

>
> Now, a forty days' rain, ten times more copious than the
> most violent rainfall known to us, will raise the level
> of the sea only about 800 metres; since the height to be
> attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to
> be filled by unknown sources amounting to a height
> of more than 8000 metres, in order to raise the water
> to the level of the greatest mountains.
>
> Thirdly, if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal,
> the sea water and the fresh water would mix to such an
> extent that neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water
> animals could have lived in the mixture without a miracle.

I already pointed that out, Abe.

>
> Fourthly, there are serious difficulties connected with the
> animals in the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal:
> How were they brought to Noah from the remote regions of the
> earth in which they lived? How could eight persons take care
> of such an array of beasts? Where did they obtain the food
> necessary for all the animals? How could the arctic animals
> live with those of the torrid zone for a whole year and under
> the same roof?

I agree, but Catholics don't necessarily conform to Biblical literalism,
Biblical literalism is a result of the Protestant Reformation. I could
add how come there were no horses in the Americas, horses were in the
Americas until the Great Pleistocene Die-Offs, but were absent from the
continent(s) for some 12,000 years until Europeans re-introduced them to
the Americas as part of the Columbian Exchange. Which further begs the
question, how come horses were in the Old World but not the New? How
could Koalas and Kangaroos reach Australia when they obviously cannot
swim across vast distances, Koalas can't swim at all. So how come there
are no Koalas in East Timor?

>
>
> The above was from the Catholic Encyclopedia in...1908.
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
>
>
> "The fact that the dove is said to have found "the waters
> . . . upon the whole earth", and that Noah "saw that the
> face of the earth was dried", leaves the impression that
> the inspired writer uses the word "earth" in the restricted
> sense of "land"."
>
>
> In other words when the Bible says 'Earth' they don't mean
> the entire Earth, but just the land near where Noah lived.
>
> A local flood.

Where the Hell did you get that PIDOOMA? The Bible says the whole world,
not just the land near where Noah lived. Another Apologist trying to
defend his religion by interpreting the texts despite what it says.

>
> It's no wonder the science minded ridicule religion since
> most haven't any religious education. It's like listening
> to someone ridicule calculus without having any knowledge
> about mathematics.

Trust me, I know more about religion than you do, my friend.

>
> Maybe religion should ridicule science for once believing
> the Earth was flat? That is essentially what your post
> is doing.

The Bible says the Earth has four quarters, which isn't something a
globe (oops, oblate spheroid) would have. A la, the Religious minded
folk were saying the Earth was flat, IMHO.

Wow, a whole bunch of bullshit. Try telling that to the Biblical
literalists of the group.

[Steady Eddie]

Yep, that's what it's about for you.
And don't get me wrong; It was about that for me for the first twenty-some years of my life.
I get it.
And I also get the Bible now, which I didn't before.
And I can tell you that whatever's related in the Bible is true - it's the account given to us from our Creator,
and it demands to be studied with humility, hunger, and honesty.

I.E. if you're not looking for the truth, don't bother looking in the Bible.
I.E. if you are convinced that Darwinism is "the truth", you wouldn't be looking in the Bible for said "truth",
now, would you?
I.E. if you're not willing to set aside your Darwinian conviction and look from a more realistic perspective,
don't bother looking in the Bible.

I.E. If you want to carry on with your Darwinian-based "proofs", based on your technical genius, go right
ahead.

[jillery]

IOW your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts, just like your
strange bedfellow rockhead.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Burkhard]

works in the realiy-based approach, so I'm good with it

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:17:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

....the most relevant of which is "Did it happen?", which has
been answered.

>The truth is, nobody knows how the Flood influenced the geology or biology of the earth, or what the
>earth would look like now if there was no Flood.

You seem to be assuming that there *was* a Noachian Flood.
The evidence, from geology to the history of cultures which
didn't notice they'd drowned, says there wasn't.

>We'll just have to wait and see.

See what?

>To claim it is impossible is an article of Atheistic faith.

No one claims it's "impossible", only that there's no
evidence it happened. We'll leave aside the fact that, *as
described*, it violates what we know of reality, such as the
canopy of water above the sky and the destination of all the
water after the Flood receded.

>To believe the Bible narrative is likewise an article of Christian faith.

Yes, but not "likewise"; the Bible narrative, unlike the
science, is unsupported by evidence.

>Touche'.

Not at all; your conflations don't hurt a bit.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Thrinaxodon]

So you admit the Flood is historically inaccurate?

> The truth is, nobody knows how the Flood influenced the geology or biology of the earth, or what the
> earth would look like now if there was no Flood.

You assume the Flood really did happen, this is what's called the Texas
Sharpshooter Fallacy, where you assume a thing is real and go from there.

> We'll just have to wait and see.

See what? (Que Bob Casanova for this one)

> To claim it is impossible is an article of Atheistic faith.

No one's claiming it's impossible, it just goes against everything we
know about reality, the Bible is not a scientific work, it's a work of
fiction meant to deceive and control the masses (a la the Council of
Nicaea).

Also, atheism isn't a "faith", it's the lack of faith.

> To believe the Bible narrative is likewise an article of Christian faith.
> Touche'.
>

[Steady Eddie]

I admit that a worldwide flood by the Creator is inconsistent with an Atheist world view.

> > The truth is, nobody knows how the Flood influenced the geology or biology of the earth, or what the
> > earth would look like now if there was no Flood.
>
> You assume the Flood really did happen, this is what's called the Texas
> Sharpshooter Fallacy, where you assume a thing is real and go from there.
>
> > We'll just have to wait and see.
>
> See what? (Que Bob Casanova for this one)

How wrong you are.

> > To claim it is impossible is an article of Atheistic faith.
>
> No one's claiming it's impossible, it just goes against everything we
> know about reality, the Bible is not a scientific work, it's a work of
> fiction meant to deceive and control the masses (a la the Council of
> Nicaea).

The Council of Nicaea was not chaired by the Creator; it's a work of man.

> Also, atheism isn't a "faith", it's the lack of faith.

So you think.
But your opinion is not an authority.

[Wolffan]

On 2016 Apr 30, Steady Eddie wrote
(in article<988ef601-e783-4f0c...@googlegroups.com>):

> >
> > Also, atheism isn't a "faith", it's the lack of faith.
>
> So you think.
> But your opinion is not an authority.

Interesting. Who is an, or the, ‘authority’ on this matter? From whence
does he/she/it/they/whatever get that ‘authority’? Why do you consider
this ‘authority’ to have greater standing thanThrinaxodon or, indeed,
theCouncil of Nicaea? How did this‘authority’ make it’s opinion on this
matter known to you? Why should anyone believe that you actually communicated
with this‘authority’?

[Steady Eddie]

What authority are you talking about? Spit it out.

[Thrinaxodon]

Are you a Trinitarian? Most Christians are, which was developed by the
Council of Nicaea. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention anything about a
"Trinity", but the Council of Nicaea did. The Council of Nicaea was
convened to address a theological dispute concerning Arianism and
Monophysitism, Arianism holds that Jesus was a man, and not of divine
essence, while Monophysitism holds that Jesus was a spirit sent down by
God, and was of pure divine being. Half of the bishops at Nicaea were
Arians, the other half Monophysitists, they ended up with a compromise
that Jesus was God in the Flesh, so he was both a man and God, how that
works, I have no fucking clue.

You are as ignorant of history as you are your science. Pathetic.

[Wolffan]

On 2016 Apr 30, Steady Eddie wrote

(in article<44e15161-e34d-4090...@googlegroups.com>):

You stated that Thrinaxodon’s opinion was not an authority. How do you know
this? From whence came this authority? On what basis did you state that
Thrinaxodon was not at least as good an authority as who or whatever it was
whose opinion you think is superior to his? Why are you dodging the question?

[Wolffan]

On 2016 Apr 30, Thrinaxodon wrote
(in article <ng3sao$l4i$1...@news.albasani.net>):

I really wonder why creationists think that anyone should give their assorted
heresies credence over actual Church teachings.

[Thrinaxodon]

Quite hilarious, albeit unintentionally. In the first century alone,
nothing more than a scant twenty years after Jesus's death, Christianity
was already starting to develop the characteristic schisms as seen in
later centuries, but this was in its beginning forms. Jewish
Christianity, which the majority of the apostles held to, believed that
Christianity should stay in Judaism, they should obey the laws of the
Torah, they are Jewish in ethnicity and character and shall remain that
way. Then came Saul of Tarsus, originally a "zealot" (yes he called
himself that) who fanatically persecuted the Christians, on his way to
Damascus he saw Jesus in a vision, which changed his ways considerably.

Saul christened himself with the name "Paul", and had to deal with the
ever increasing problem of the increasing number of Gentiles among
Christian congregations, Paul himself was torn over whether the Torah
applied to Gentiles or not. He was called "Apostle to the Gentiles",
Gentile, meaning "non-Jew". Indeed, if it weren't for Paul's
proselytizing efforts throughout the Ancient world (he even got as far
as Rome), Christianity wouldn't have become as successful as it is now.
Pauline Christianity differed from Jewish Christianity in stating that
Jesus formed a new covenant, replacing the Israelites as God's chosen
people, instead stating that all ethnic groups are God's chosen people,
and that the Torah no longer applied to the world.

There was another form of Christianity, Gnostic Christianity, or just,
Gnosticism. The Gnostics combined Greek Platonism and Hellenism with
Judaism and Christianity, I can't say much for them because I hardly
know anything about them, so don't consult me for matters on the Gnostic
faith. Eventually, after two centuries of persecution, Emperor
Constantine I declared Christianity to be a tolerated religion alongside
that of Judaism. In 380 AD, Christianity (in its Pauline form) was made
the state religion of Rome. And thus the new Christian Church started to
suppress other faiths, and "heresies" such as Gnosticism and Arianism. A
lot of blood was shed over this matter of faith, untold numbers of
people murdered under a "convert or die" program, which sadly we have
seen happen throughout history.

That's nothing to say of the thousands of Christian denominations today,
who each call themselves the "One True Faith" and denounce all the other
sects as "heretical".

[Jonathan]

On 4/30/2016 2:31 PM, Thrinaxodon wrote:


>
> No one's claiming it's impossible, it just goes against everything we
> know about reality, the Bible is not a scientific work, it's a work of
> fiction meant to deceive and control the masses (a la the Council of
> Nicaea).
>

The Bible is a conspiracy 'meant to deceive and control'?
Care to share with us your...factual evidence...or proof
for that claim Mr Science?

I bet more proof could be found for Bigfoot.

> Also, atheism isn't a "faith", it's the lack of faith.
>

Atheism is a lack of common sense and a lack of understanding
of reality. The idea there are creative or wise forces
greater than the individual is a scientific fact now.

But you wouldn't know that, your education in the
new sciences is lacking.


Emergence


"In religion, emergence grounds expressions of religious naturalism
and syntheism in which a sense of the sacred is perceived in
the workings of entirely naturalistic processes by which more
complex forms arise or evolve from simpler forms. Examples are
detailed in The Sacred Emergence of Nature by Ursula Goodenough
& Terrence Deacon and Beyond Reductionism: Reinventing the Sacred
by Stuart Kauffman, both from 2006, and in Syntheism -
Creating God in The Internet Age by Alexander Bard & Jan
Söderqvist from 2014."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[Jonathan]

On 4/29/2016 9:26 PM, Thrinaxodon wrote:

>
> Yes, nothing says that the Religious are so scientifically-dead as to be
> worthless, I`m only attacking the Literalists among us, not the
> Catholics (or at least the authors of the Catholic Encyclopaedia).
>

Your original post made no mention at all your
criticism was to the literal fringe and not
mainstream religion.

My point remains that your attempting to judge
religion and the Bible in general by using
the fanatical fringe or literal interpretations.

So, again, should I judge science by it's quacks?
Your atheist tactics only reaffirm by belief
in the term....The Dishonest Atheist.

As in your strawman tactics against religion
are dishonest debating tactics and the sign
of a losing and desperate argument.

>>
>>
>>
>> (c) There are also certain scientific considerations which
>> oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal.
>>
>>
>> First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to
>> have been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe
>> connected with the beginning of the ice-age, or the
>> geological deluge, must not be connected with the Biblical.
>
>
> There were many gigantic floods at the Pleistocene-Holecene transition,
> many Aboriginal Australians tell tales of hunting grounds now covered by
> the sea, where it was flooded in time immemorial.
>

And mainstream religion, for at least a century, has
considered the Biblical flood story as just another
local flood. Myths of floods handed down shouldn't
be much of a mystery or source of concern, but
quite the opposite as floods are not only common
throughout history, but floods are also usually
devastating.



You are the one taking the Bible literally by
insisting the Biblical flood was meant to
cover the entire Earth by taking literally
the term 'Earth' without the proper context.
Mainstream religion does not share your
literal interpretation.

That makes you the literal fringe fanatic.

>>
>> Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge,
>> as described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the
>> data furnished in the Biblical account. If the surface of
>> the earth, in round numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square
>> kilometres, and if the elevation of the highest mountains
>> reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the
>> Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to about
>> 4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres.
>
> Where the Hell did you get that statistic?
>
>

Reading is fundamental, I said the quote was from 1908.

>>
>> The above was from the Catholic Encyclopedia in...1908.
>> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
>>
>>
>> "The fact that the dove is said to have found "the waters
>> . . . upon the whole earth", and that Noah "saw that the
>> face of the earth was dried", leaves the impression that
>> the inspired writer uses the word "earth" in the restricted
>> sense of "land"."
>>
>>
>> In other words when the Bible says 'Earth' they don't mean
>> the entire Earth, but just the land near where Noah lived.
>>
>> A local flood.
>
> Where the Hell did you get that PIDOOMA? The Bible says the whole world,
> not just the land near where Noah lived. Another Apologist trying to
> defend his religion by interpreting the texts despite what it says.
>

From the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1908, it's been
common knowledge for over a century mainstream religion
has interpreted the flood as local, not universal.

Again, your insistence on a literal interpretation
of the Bible just screams in your above statement
ant that makes YOU the literal radical fringe.

Congratulations, you've become what you despise.



s

[Thrinaxodon]

Perhaps this will soothe your mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mU6USTBRE

[Steady Eddie]

No, I'm not a Trinitarian, precisely because I've looked into the matter.
Your accusation of my historical ignorance is unwarranted.

I rely on Jehovah's Witnesses on matters related to the Creator, particularly his identity and nature.
They reveal things that nominal Christians in general are not taught by their churches.
As it happens, you are about 140 years late in schooling me on the Trinity:

"Likewise, the Bible Students exposed as false the widely revered Trinity doctrine. In 1887, Zion's Watch
Tower remarked: "The Scriptures are very clear concerning the distinct individuality and exact relationship
of Jehovah and our Lord Jesus." The article then noted how amazing it was that "the idea of a triune God
--three Gods in one, and at the same time, one God in three--should ever have gained prominence and
general acceptance. But the fact that it is so, only goes to show how soundly the church slept while the
enemy bound her in the chains of error.""

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014241#h=15:0-15:562

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 30 April 2016 21:33:32 UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2016 Apr 30, Steady Eddie wrote
> (in article<44e15161-e34d-4090...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Saturday, 30 April 2016 20:43:32 UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
> > > On 2016 Apr 30, Steady Eddie wrote
> > > (in article<988ef601-e783-4f0c...@googlegroups.com>):
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, atheism isn't a "faith", it's the lack of faith.
> > > >
> > > > So you think.
> > > > But your opinion is not an authority.
> > >
> > > Interesting. Who is an, or the, 'authority' on this matter? From whence
> > > does he/she/it/they/whatever get that 'authority'? Why do you consider
> > > this 'authority' to have greater standing thanThrinaxodon or, indeed,
> > > theCouncil of Nicaea? How did this'authority' make it's opinion on this
> > > matter known to you? Why should anyone believe that you actually
> > > communicated
> > > with this'authority'?
> >
> > What authority are you talking about? Spit it out.
>
> You stated that Thrinaxodon's opinion was not an authority. How do you know
> this? From whence came this authority?

Again, what AUTHORITY are you talking about?
I simply said that Mr. T's opinion is not an authority.

What exactly is it your are trying to bait me to say?

On what basis did you state that
> Thrinaxodon was not at least as good an authority as who or whatever it was
> whose opinion you think is superior to his? Why are you dodging the question?

I made no mention, or insinuation, of a higher authority than Mr. T. I merely pointed out that his opinion
that Atheism isn't a Faith is not authoritative by virtue of being his opinion.

Get off it, already. I don't claim to be an authority on the topic either, so I'm not putting myself above him.
I claim no authority for my opinion that Atheism is a Faith. The very meanings of both terms - "Atheism"
and "Faith" - are WAY too contested for us to have any fruitful debate on the topic (I've already tried on
T.O.), and I don't intend on getting mired down in said debate again here. Presently I'm content to assert -
as my considered opinion - that Atheism is as much a Faith as any other.

[Jonathan]

On 5/1/2016 12:38 PM, Thrinaxodon wrote:


>>
> Perhaps this will soothe your mind:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mU6USTBRE
>

Your response get this grade, and I'm
being generous.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3CfD8TPac

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 01, Steady Eddie wrote
(in article<eb3c914d-dc85-40ba...@googlegroups.com>):

I wanted you to admit that you have no basis for that statement. You have.
This makes you the single most honest creationist I have ever encountered.
None of the others would ever admit to having no leg to stand on.
Congratulations.

[Thrinaxodon]

"Looked into the matter"? You mean, by blindly following everything the
Watchtower Society spits out, that's "looking into the matter"? Your
Critical Thinking skills are sub-par my friend, sub-par indeed.

>
> I rely on Jehovah's Witnesses on matters related to the Creator, particularly his identity and nature.
> They reveal things that nominal Christians in general are not taught by their churches.
> As it happens, you are about 140 years late in schooling me on the Trinity:

That's says everything I need to know. "Nominal Christians"? I beg to
differ, all the Christian denominations say theirs' is the right one and
all the other sects are wrong. The Orthodox and Catholic denominations
split up because they thought each other was heretical, you still have
Orthodox adherents telling me that the Catholics split from them, and
vice versa.

Try telling that to any Christian, and you'd get punched in the face.
Jehovah's Witnesses have as much of a right to call themselves Christian
as Catholics do, they're all Christian to me.

>
> "Likewise, the Bible Students exposed as false the widely revered Trinity doctrine. In 1887, Zion's Watch
> Tower remarked: "The Scriptures are very clear concerning the distinct individuality and exact relationship
> of Jehovah and our Lord Jesus." The article then noted how amazing it was that "the idea of a triune God
> --three Gods in one, and at the same time, one God in three--should ever have gained prominence and
> general acceptance. But the fact that it is so, only goes to show how soundly the church slept while the
> enemy bound her in the chains of error.""
>
> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014241#h=15:0-15:562
>

Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, if you even dare question any of their
teachings, you get kicked out o' the church. "Watchtower Publications"
my ass. I hate proselytizing, especially if they come to your house
every day. I have a sign up saying "No solicitors" and they come
anyways. There's also the issue of no blood-transfusions, one Jehovah's
Witnesses parent let her new-born daughter die because the treatment
"violated her religious freedom". Those are the dangers of
fundamentalism, fundamentalists don't give a shit if someone's dying,
because it "violates their 'religious freedom'".

[Steady Eddie]

Yeah, they're the "Fundamentalists", or "cult", as you say, that "proselytized" about the Trinity
being hogwash 140 years before you did.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:17:03 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

>>The truth is, nobody knows how the Flood influenced the geology or biology of the earth, or what the
>>earth would look like now if there was no Flood.
>
>You seem to be assuming that there *was* a Noachian Flood.
>The evidence, from geology to the history of cultures which
>didn't notice they'd drowned, says there wasn't.

[Crickets...]

>>We'll just have to wait and see.
>
>See what?

[Crickets...]

>>To claim it is impossible is an article of Atheistic faith.
>
>No one claims it's "impossible", only that there's no
>evidence it happened. We'll leave aside the fact that, *as
>described*, it violates what we know of reality, such as the
>canopy of water above the sky and the destination of all the
>water after the Flood receded.

[Crickets...]

>>To believe the Bible narrative is likewise an article of Christian faith.
>
>Yes, but not "likewise"; the Bible narrative, unlike the
>science, is unsupported by evidence.

[Crickets...]

[John Stockwell]

Oh, you are a JW! That explains a lot.

-John

[J. J. Lodder]

Thrinaxodon <oxy...@oxyaena.org> wrote:

> There are many, many, many problems with the idea of a Global Flood, too
> many to delve into given the time I have to write this (and that time is
> pretty limited, because, well, I've got a life that remarkably isn't all
> USENET). Let's focus on number one:
>
> There are so many inconsistencies in the world to have been made by the
> Global Flood, let's take a look at the prime example, the Grand Canyon,
> you see, one component of the Grand Canyon is the Kaibab Sandstone,
> which if a Global Flood were to have occurred, would've been turned into
> mush, that's not what we see. In fact, the Kaibab sandstone contains
> many details that would've been destroyed by a global deluge, such as
> the intricate series of footprints made by a lizard like creature, or
> the sand dune formations, that's not what we would expect. Not only
> that, the Grand Canyon winds like a river, not something we would expect
> in a flood.
>
> Another problem is how did the fish survive, freshwater and marine? Many
> saltwater fish cannot survive in freshwater due to the lesser salinity,
> and vice versa, and then, given the huge currents as required by some
> creationists, the fish would've suffocated because of the huge amount of
> dirt and mud in the water (even as little as 30% of dirt in the water
> can suffocate fish), so how did the fish survive? The fish would've
> certainly be thrown back and forth, colliding with the huge amounts of
> rock that would've gotten thrown all over the place, so again, how did
> the fish survive?

And once survived, how did the freshwater fish
manage to sort themselves out from the chaos,
with just the right species in the right lake?

Jan

[Paul J Gans]

You don't understand. God did it. Once you invoke God, anything
is possible. That's why God is a useless concept when discussing
science. Anything becomes possible and the inability to duplicate
a phenomenon is then simply God's will.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[J. J. Lodder]

That is not the position of the true believers.
They claim (don't ask me how)
that it is all explainable by natural law,
and follows from natural causes,

Jan

[jillery]

My understanding is that True Believers (c) don't need no stinkin'
explanations; they accept it on faith alone. It's the doofuses who
mix up natural causes and God's mysterious ways that's the problem.

[J. J. Lodder]

They do need them, and take it on faith that those explanations exist,

Jan

[eridanus]

true believers have not problems.
eri

[Paul J Gans]

That's because they inwardly recognize the power of science. In other
words they've already lost and are simply crying "tell us it isn't so".

[Rolf]

"Thrinaxodon" <oxy...@oxyaena.org> wrote in message
news:ng0e2d$lc4$1...@news.albasani.net...
> There are many, many, many problems with the idea of a Global Flood, ...

[snip]

Indeed.

The back cover of "Before the Flood" by Ian Wilson (2001) reads

"In 1995 two marine biologists revealed that, until 7500 years ago, the
Black Sea was a freshwater lake. They suggested that the Mediterranean broke
through the land barrier and salt water poured through with a force 200
times that of the Nigara falls.

In September 2000 Professor Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) found
the wooden remains of houses 300 feet below the surface of the Black sea.

In Before the Flood Ian Wilson reveals how this startling new evidence
suggests a catastrophic flood in the Middle East which changed the shape of
the worlds civilisation and became the basis of the story of Noah's Ark and
the Biblical Flood."


Rolf

[jillery]

Like Ray's Christians, if they need a natural explanation to believe,
they are not True Believers (c).

OTOH "True Believers" would be a great name for a Christian-rock band.

[J. J. Lodder]

Rolf <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Thrinaxodon" <oxy...@oxyaena.org> wrote in message
> news:ng0e2d$lc4$1...@news.albasani.net...
> > There are many, many, many problems with the idea of a Global Flood, ...
>
> [snip]
>
> Indeed.
>
> The back cover of "Before the Flood" by Ian Wilson (2001) reads
>
> "In 1995 two marine biologists revealed that, until 7500 years ago, the
> Black Sea was a freshwater lake. They suggested that the Mediterranean broke
> through the land barrier and salt water poured through with a force 200
> times that of the Nigara falls.
>
> In September 2000 Professor Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) found
> the wooden remains of houses 300 feet below the surface of the Black sea.
>
> In Before the Flood Ian Wilson reveals how this startling new evidence
> suggests a catastrophic flood in the Middle East which changed the shape of
> the worlds civilisation and became the basis of the story of Noah's Ark and
> the Biblical Flood."

Yes, it was a nice idea,
and it did serve to extract some funds for Ballard
from American fundies, but we know by now
that a catastrophic Black Sea flood never happened.

And btw, even if it had happened, connecting it with Noah
would still be complete nonsense,

Jan

[eridanus]

American geologists discovered enough data to prove that once the
Mediterranean Sea was closed and in less than a million years become
a lake of salt. Some rivers in the north of Africa, as well as the Rhone
and the Ebro in Spain, excavated a deep basin as the result of the
Mediterranean Sea to get empty. The button of the Mediterranean is covered
with several hundreds feet deep salt. It is assumed that rivers going to
the Mediterranean basin do not delivered enough water and it evaporated.
I read this in and article of Scientific America not so long ago; 20 years
ago, or something like this.
The flood of the Black Sea could had occurred when the Gibraltar Strait
opened again some million years later. As soon as water from the Atlantic
started to come in, it was only a time for the sea to come back again
to the Black Sea.
eridani

[Steady Eddie]

Actually, I'm not a JW, I just think that they're the group being faithful to God.

I was a garden variety agnostic evolutionist until I studied the Bible with the Witnesses and realized that
the Bible is God's letter to mankind.

I got kicked out several years back for immoral practices, but I haven't changed my mind about what I
have learned.

[Steady Eddie]

Produce a quote, or just speak for yourself.

[August Rode]

That's as close to an outright lie as anything you've ever said, Ed.
What gives you the right to call yourself an evolutionist, even if in
the past, when you don't understand the first thing about evolution?

[J. J. Lodder]

You are confusing two episodes of geological history.
I) The Med got dry because Gibraltar closed temporarily,
several million years ago. (several episodes, iirc.
The results are salt domes on the bottom of the Med,
and burried canyons all around it. (Nile, Rhone, etc)
During this period the Black Sea was a freshwater lake,
the Dardanelles a river.

II) During the Ice Ages the sea level was about 100 m lower.
Gibraltar remained open, the Med was still a sea,
the Black Sea was again a freshwater lake.
You can imagine that the Black Sea had an evaporation surplus,
and that the Dardanelles dried up and filled in.
Next you can imagine that the Dardanelles broke catastrophically.
Good yarn, except for it not having happened.

It got some money for science out of silly American fundies,
(for 'flood research')
so perhaps it was a good thing, while it lasted,

Jan

[Earle Jones27]

*
Eddie: You want a quote? Here's a quote:

"The Christian teaching of science requires not only a good
command of basic subject matter, but also the spiritual perception
to discern truth from error in a great variety of contexts. As a
prerequisite for this, the Christian teacher of science must be
thoroughly grounded in the Word of God. Moreover, he must have
firmly implanted in his mind a biblical framework of truth which
serves as the touchstone for his decision making. True science
will fit that framework; anything that fails to fit the biblical
framework must be rejected as erroneous. The present discussion
demonstrates the need for a distinctively Christian philosophy of
science teaching and surveys the differences between Christian and
secular science education."

--Bob Jones University, "Christian Teaching of Science"

Do you get that: Regarding religion and science, "... anything that
fails to fit the biblical
framework must be rejected as erroneous."

If the science and religion do not agree, then you must find the error
in the science.

If science teaches us that homo sapiens has a life span of about 100
years, but the Bible teaches us that Methusaleh lived 900+ years.
Should we change our scientific conclusion?

Or, perhaps, George Gershwin was right: "It ain't necessarily so – the
things that you're liable to read in the Bible – it ain't necessarily
so."

earle