Why There Was No Flood - Item #62
Budikka666
This is an article on "flood geology" that I've never seen before, and
presents a remarkably even-handed summary of the positions (the
reality-based scientific view and the mythology-based creationist
views, but even in doing so it highlights many reasons why there could
not have been a global flood at any time:
The first item of note is the profound disagreements between the
global flood proponents as to when (as measured by the geologic
column) it took purportedly took place and how it could have happened.
In short, their best proponents cannot agree among themselves when
this flood was supposed to have been or how it could have been
caused! LoL! So much for their science.
Other problems with the flood according to this article are:
1. Creationists *lie* about the geologic column existing in one
location.
2. Mainstream scientists hold that the evidence available is
sufficient to conclusively falsify the notion of a recent global
flood.
3. Creationist explanations for the fossil record "...ignore the fact
that fossil dating (biostratigraphy) was a strictly relative dating
method until the advent of radiometric dating. Until then, there were
no assumptions about deposition rate involved. Relative dating - i.e.
this section is older/younger than that one - only requires the law of
superposition. Mutation and evolution rates proved to be congruent
with the timespans obtained from radiometric dating."
4. "In general, there is a lack of any evidence for [creationist
explanations for fossil layering] and their claims of fossil layering
are not taken seriously by scientists."
5. "...there are so many problems with [claims for fast-frozen
mammoths] that even the Young Earth Creationist ministry Answers in
Genesis states that it is an argument that should not be used."!
6. "Creationists have proposed at least three separate explanations
for the mechanism that caused the flood."!
7. "...the literalness of Genesis had been rejected as early as the
5th century by Saint Augustine of Hippo. However, Augustine was in a
minority, because most Church Fathers did accept a literal Genesis.)"
8. "Water is less dense than rock; therefore, mainstream scientists
claim, it would be forced to the surface long before the date of the
flood. They add that at any significant depth beneath the surface of
the Earth, the water would have been boiled, causing giant steam
plumes which would be further heated by falling back to earth."
9. "Some flood geology supporters have proposed that the Earth's
surface was much flatter in the past, thus allowing a much smaller
volume of water to cover the planet. However, in order for the Earth's
crust to reach its present form from such a flat stage over the past
four thousand years, geologists point out, a tremendous amount of work
would be required by a mechanism unstated by creationists. They point
out that heating caused by the raising of the mountains and the
lowering of the sea in about 150 days would be enough to raise oceanic
temperatures on the order of 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees
Fahrenheit)."
10. "...because mainstream science can comprehensively describe the
relevant data, flood geology, which inherently requires on God, is
redundant because of its underlying assumption of divine
intervention."
Budikka
duke
>The first item of note is the profound disagreements between the
>global flood proponents as to when (as measured by the geologic
>column) it took purportedly took place and how it could have happened.
>In short, their best proponents cannot agree among themselves when
>this flood was supposed to have been or how it could have been
>caused! LoL! So much for their science.
How could said proponents agree. NO ONE knows the entire history of the 4.5
billion year geologic history of the world.
Except that we do know that, one day in the long and lonely past, Mt Everest was
just a speed bump.
>Other problems with the flood according to this article are:
>1. Creationists *lie* about the geologic column existing in one
>location.
Of course "they" do, bubba dud, of course "they lie".
>2. Mainstream scientists hold that the evidence available is
>sufficient to conclusively falsify the notion of a recent global
>flood.
But bud the dud, we're not talking about the recent past. We talking about the
4.5 billion history of the world. Remember that said flood, if it happened,
occurred between the time of 4000BC and 4.5 billion years ago.
>3. Creationist explanations for the fossil record "...ignore the fact
>that fossil dating (biostratigraphy) was a strictly relative dating
>method until the advent of radiometric dating.
Sorry dud, but radiometric dating requires a calibration source from the same
time frame.
>4. "In general, there is a lack of any evidence for [creationist
>explanations for fossil layering] and their claims of fossil layering
>are not taken seriously by scientists."
Scientists call it the catastrophic upheavals of the earth's surface over it's
4.5 billion year history.
>5. "...there are so many problems with [claims for fast-frozen
>mammoths] that even the Young Earth Creationist ministry Answers in
>Genesis states that it is an argument that should not be used."!
NOBODY knows.
>6. "Creationists have proposed at least three separate explanations
>for the mechanism that caused the flood."!
From scripture which was revealed by God but written in the hand of man, just
recently (6000 years).
>7. "...the literalness of Genesis had been rejected as early as the
>5th century by Saint Augustine of Hippo. However, Augustine was in a
>minority, because most Church Fathers did accept a literal Genesis.)"
From a "faith" standpoint. Not a scientific standpoint.
>8. "Water is less dense than rock; therefore, mainstream scientists
>claim, it would be forced to the surface long before the date of the
>flood.
What date is that, dud. The time frame is 4.5 billion years - remember.
>9. "Some flood geology supporters have proposed that the Earth's
>surface was much flatter in the past, thus allowing a much smaller
>volume of water to cover the planet.
Yep, it's called Mt. Everest just a speed bump, bud the dud, like I've been
telling you all these years.
>10. "...because mainstream science can comprehensively describe the
>relevant data, flood geology, which inherently requires on God, is
>redundant because of its underlying assumption of divine
>intervention."
Of course it relies "on" God, bubba dud. :-)
>Budikka
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
DanielSan
> On 20 Apr 2007 16:41:36 -0700, Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The first item of note is the profound disagreements between the
>>global flood proponents as to when (as measured by the geologic
>>column) it took purportedly took place and how it could have happened.
>
>
>>In short, their best proponents cannot agree among themselves when
>>this flood was supposed to have been or how it could have been
>>caused! LoL! So much for their science.
>
>
> How could said proponents agree. NO ONE knows the entire history of the 4.5
> billion year geologic history of the world.
Then the Bible writers are liars?
>
> Except that we do know that, one day in the long and lonely past, Mt Everest was
> just a speed bump.
And other mountains that are now "speed bumps" were as tall as Mt
Everest. Research tectonic theory prior to making stupid assertions
like that one in the future, duke.
>
>
>>Other problems with the flood according to this article are:
>>1. Creationists *lie* about the geologic column existing in one
>>location.
>
>
> Of course "they" do, bubba dud, of course "they lie".
Glad you agree. :-)
>
>
>>2. Mainstream scientists hold that the evidence available is
>>sufficient to conclusively falsify the notion of a recent global
>>flood.
>
>
> But bud the dud, we're not talking about the recent past. We talking about the
> 4.5 billion history of the world. Remember that said flood, if it happened,
> occurred between the time of 4000BC and 4.5 billion years ago.
Then there's a strong possibility that the "flood" that you're referrig
to pre-dates humanity.
>
>
>>3. Creationist explanations for the fossil record "...ignore the fact
>>that fossil dating (biostratigraphy) was a strictly relative dating
>>method until the advent of radiometric dating.
>
>
> Sorry dud, but radiometric dating requires a calibration source from the same
> time frame.
Calibration is only one minor aspect of radiometric dating. There is
also the knowledge of the carbon-14 half-life and how age affects it.
>
>
>>4. "In general, there is a lack of any evidence for [creationist
>>explanations for fossil layering] and their claims of fossil layering
>>are not taken seriously by scientists."
>
>
> Scientists call it the catastrophic upheavals of the earth's surface over it's
> 4.5 billion year history.
No evidence of a global flood during the times of humans, though.
>
>
>>5. "...there are so many problems with [claims for fast-frozen
>>mammoths] that even the Young Earth Creationist ministry Answers in
>>Genesis states that it is an argument that should not be used."!
>
>
> NOBODY knows.
Including you.
>
>
>>6. "Creationists have proposed at least three separate explanations
>>for the mechanism that caused the flood."!
>
>
> From scripture which was revealed by God but written in the hand of man, just
> recently (6000 years).
So, God is simply an intangible muse?
>
>
>>7. "...the literalness of Genesis had been rejected as early as the
>>5th century by Saint Augustine of Hippo. However, Augustine was in a
>>minority, because most Church Fathers did accept a literal Genesis.)"
>
>
> From a "faith" standpoint. Not a scientific standpoint.
Faith is not scientific.
>
>
>>8. "Water is less dense than rock; therefore, mainstream scientists
>>claim, it would be forced to the surface long before the date of the
>>flood.
>
>
> What date is that, dud. The time frame is 4.5 billion years - remember.
And the possibility of it a antedating humanity, if it happened at all,
is very high.
>
>
>>9. "Some flood geology supporters have proposed that the Earth's
>>surface was much flatter in the past, thus allowing a much smaller
>>volume of water to cover the planet.
>
>
> Yep, it's called Mt. Everest just a speed bump, bud the dud, like I've been
> telling you all these years.
And no other Mt Everests could POSSIBLY exist during those times?
>
>
>>10. "...because mainstream science can comprehensively describe the
>>relevant data, flood geology, which inherently requires on God, is
>>redundant because of its underlying assumption of divine
>>intervention."
>
>
> Of course it relies "on" God, bubba dud. :-)
So, therefore, it relies "on" wishful thinking.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
Budikka666
>
> >>The first item of note is the profound disagreements between the
> >>global flood proponents as to when (as measured by the geologic
> >>column) it took purportedly took place and how it could have happened.
>
> >>In short, their best proponents cannot agree among themselves when
> >>this flood was supposed to have been or how it could have been
> >>caused! LoL! So much for their science.
>
> > How could said proponents agree. NO ONE knows the entire history of the 4.5
> > billion year geologic history of the world.
>
> Then the Bible writers are liars?
I think that much has been established beyond all reasonable doubt!
Duck & Run has been running from the Bible's own chronology for at
least three years now. He's too chickenshit to even address it. If
you raise the issue, he completely avoids his god's own holy word, and
runs and hides behind a Bible commentary, investing that with more
authority than the Bible itself! Here, let me prove it:
The Bible's own chronology, given in Gen. 5 & 11, lists specific
names, starting with Adam and going all the way to Abram in an
uninterrupted sequence (from whence "Luke" continues the names all the
way to Jesus. All things considered, this chronology establishes the
flood at approximately 4,250 years ago, give or take. Here it is:
Adam at 130 begat
Seth at 105 begat
Enosh at 90 begat
Kenan at 70 begat
Mahalalel at 65 begat
Jared at 162 begat
Enoch at 65 begat
Methuselah at 187 begat
Lamech at 182 begat
Noah at 500 begat
Shem at 100 begat
Arpachshad at 35 begat
Shelah at 30 begat
Eber at 34 begat
Peleg at 30 begat
Reu at 32 begat
Serug at 30 begat
Nahor at 29 begat
Terah at 70 begat
Abram
In short, **by god's own word**, the time span from Adam to Abram was
less than 2,000 years, and the flood was only 890 years before Abram.
Duckshit has *never* directly addressed this genealogy or even
pretended he could explain why it is invalid (in his Biblical world,
that is).
He tries to pretend, **without a single shred of justification** that
everything before Abram is "prehistory", yet here we have a specific
genealogy with specific ages in a continuous unbroken chain, placing
the flood a mere 890 years before Abram.
If the Bible doesn't lie, then the flood was ~4,250 years ago, and
Duke loses. If the Bible does lie, Duke loses.
Duck & Run ducks and runs from that chronology and has been doing so
for three years. He claims that dating the flood to ~4,250 years ago
(using Bible chronology) is invalid, but he has never offered a shred
of support for his claim.
Meanwhile, he hypocritically - pulling it out of his dumb ass -
insists that the flood could have been at any time in the last 4.5
billion years (this includes yesterday, of course!), and cannot offer
a single shred of support for his claim. So basically, what he's
doing here is saying the Bible lies and his authority is greater than
that of his god!
There is a host of reasons why the flood could not have happened at
any time in the last 4.5 billion years. Many of them can be produced
using *only* the Bible fiction. For example, the Bible explicitly
dates the flood to a time when there were humans on Earth, when there
was civilisation on Earth, when there was viniculture on Earth, and
when there were advanced boatbuilding skills on Earth. None of this
was here before (at the outside) 10,000 years ago.
But Duke pulls his facrical bullshit right out of his ass and pretends
that all of those things could have been at any time in the last 4.5
billion years - even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support
it, even though all the available evidence refutes his flood claims.
He has never explained how that 890 years from Noah to Abram is
magically stretched out to 4.5 billion years.
The only thing Duckshit has proven beyond all contention is that's
he's a monumental moron! He's so desperate to cover his colossal
incompetence in facing up to serious flaws in the Bible flood story
that he keeps on digging his hole ever deeper and he's completely
lacking the honesty and intellectual integrity to admit he's the
biggest liar and dimwit on Usenet.
> > Except that we do know that, one day in the long and lonely past, Mt Everest was
> > just a speed bump.
>
> And other mountains that are now "speed bumps" were as tall as Mt
> Everest. Research tectonic theory prior to making stupid assertions
> like that one in the future, duke.
Duke conveniently ignores reality as usual if it conflicts with his
profoundly blinkered view of things. Either that or he's too
fundamentally stupid to even grasp reality in the first place.
> >>Other problems with the flood according to this article are:
> >>1. Creationists *lie* about the geologic column existing in one
> >>location.
>
> > Of course "they" do, bubba dud, of course "they lie".
>
> Glad you agree. :-)
They sure do. Here's an ex-creationist's account of the issue:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
Puke has been repeatedly reminded that there are rocks in the range of
4 billion years old on every continent, and there are some rocks
marginally over 4 billion years old still extant at one or two places
on Earth, *and* there are examples of the entire geologic column in
more than one location on Earth, yet NOWHERE in any of these rocks, no
matter how old they are, is there *any* indication of a global flood -
EVER.
> >>2. Mainstream scientists hold that the evidence available is
> >>sufficient to conclusively falsify the notion of a recent global
> >>flood.
>
> > But bud the dud, we're not talking about the recent past. We talking about the
> > 4.5 billion history of the world. Remember that said flood, if it happened,
> > occurred between the time of 4000BC and 4.5 billion years ago.
>
> Then there's a strong possibility that the "flood" that you're referrig
> to pre-dates humanity.
That's irrelevant in Duke's headlong flight from reality. He's not
concerned about how deep the hole is that he burying himself in, or
that he's the only one on the planet who is in his particular hidey-
hole. All he's concerned about is avoiding like the plague having to
admit to me or to anyone, that I've repeatedly kicked his dumb, lying,
cowardly hypocritical ass seven ways from sundown on the flawed flood
fable.
> >>3. Creationist explanations for the fossil record "...ignore the fact
> >>that fossil dating (biostratigraphy) was a strictly relative dating
> >>method until the advent of radiometric dating.
>
> > Sorry dud, but radiometric dating requires a calibration source from the same
> > time frame.
>
> Calibration is only one minor aspect of radiometric dating. There is
> also the knowledge of the carbon-14 half-life and how age affects it.
Hurl has no conception whatsoever of what's involved in radiometric
dating (carbon 14 won't do it - it's only good for about 55,000
years), yet he thinks he knows more about it than experts, including
this expert, who is a Christian - and a far better Christian than scum
like Duke can ever hope to be:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Puke has completely misunderstood the point above about radiometric
dating and he's too stupid to know it.
> >>4. "In general, there is a lack of any evidence for [creationist
> >>explanations for fossil layering] and their claims of fossil layering
> >>are not taken seriously by scientists."
>
> > Scientists call it the catastrophic upheavals of the earth's surface over it's
> > 4.5 billion year history.
>
> No evidence of a global flood during the times of humans, though.
Puke thinks humans stretch back 4.5 billion years, and he also has
stated explicitly that there's no reason to assume it was humans who
were the ones punished by this god! In short, he's unashamedly making
up his own Bible out of his ass, inventing the entire flood story as
he goes!
> >>5. "...there are so many problems with [claims for fast-frozen
> >>mammoths] that even the Young Earth Creationist ministry Answers in
> >>Genesis states that it is an argument that should not be used."!
>
> > NOBODY knows.
>
> Including you.
If there's one thing we can be quite sure of, Hurl knows the cube root
of squat, and that's been categorically demonstrated repeatedly by
pretty much every regular in a.a!
> >>6. "Creationists have proposed at least three separate explanations
> >>for the mechanism that caused the flood."!
>
> > From scripture which was revealed by God but written in the hand of man, just
> > recently (6000 years).
>
> So, God is simply an intangible muse?
Since the Bible is full of lies, contradictions and errors, we can be
sure people invented it with no god involved - either that or Duke's
god is as incompetent and inept as Duke is.
> >>7. "...the literalness of Genesis had been rejected as early as the
> >>5th century by Saint Augustine of Hippo. However, Augustine was in a
> >>minority, because most Church Fathers did accept a literal Genesis.)"
>
> > From a "faith" standpoint. Not a scientific standpoint.
>
> Faith is not scientific.
See? He's as clueless as he is shameless. The early believers *did*
accept the Bible as science. Many fundies still do! It was only when
those early creationists actually started doing *empirical* science
that they realised what a pack of lies the Bible is.
> >>8. "Water is less dense than rock; therefore, mainstream scientists
> >>claim, it would be forced to the surface long before the date of the
> >>flood.
>
> > What date is that, dud. The time frame is 4.5 billion years - remember.
>
> And the possibility of it a antedating humanity, if it happened at all,
> is very high.
The date is the one the Bible *explicitly* gives in the genealogy - a
mere 890 years prior to Abram - the date Duke is fleeing from as fast
as his cowardly legs can run.
> >>9. "Some flood geology supporters have proposed that the Earth's
> >>surface was much flatter in the past, thus allowing a much smaller
> >>volume of water to cover the planet.
>
> > Yep, it's called Mt. Everest just a speed bump, bud the dud, like I've been
> > telling you all these years.
>
> And no other Mt Everests could POSSIBLY exist during those times?
Puke is fixated on Everest because it's the tallest mountain. He's
trying to prove that the flood could have been only an inch deep and
covered the whole globe if the globe were completely smooth! LoL! Of
course, he turns himself into an even bigger idiot (if it's possible)
when he makes claims like this "speed bump" one.
He has absolutely no clue that Everest is only 60 millon years old
The Appalachians are almost ten times older than that.
But it's irrelevant, since Duke's god's own holy word gives a
chronology that explicitly places the flood at 890 years before Abram
- something Duke is too shit-scared to actually directly address.
> >>10. "...because mainstream science can comprehensively describe the
> >>relevant data, flood geology, which inherently requires on God, is
> >>redundant because of its underlying assumption of divine
> >>intervention."
>
> > Of course it relies "on" God, bubba dud. :-)
>
> So, therefore, it relies "on" wishful thinking.
Exactly. Duckshit's entire life is nothing more than wishful
thinking. He's a demonstrated liar, he's stupid, he's a coward, he's
a hypocrite, and he's a piece of lowlife scum who laughs at tragedies
like the one at V Tech and the one on 9/11 because he honestly
believes that the sinners were getting what was due to them.
I won't even talk to trash like him any more.
Budikka
duke
>> How could said proponents agree. NO ONE knows the entire history of the 4.5
>> billion year geologic history of the world.
>Then the Bible writers are liars?
Nope, pass this on to bubba dud for me. She continues to run from the bible
accounts of Genesis.
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
2.) the special creation of man
3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
4.) the unity of the human race
5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
integrity, and immortality
6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
under the form of a serpent
8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
examined more fully by exegetes. So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
fundamental to our faith expressed in Genesis ch. 1- 3, the truths around which
the ancient Hebraic authors either elaborated a story or collected a popular
tradition or recorded a primitive pre-history.
*****
http://books.google.com/books?id=WPt7NB9GFu0C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=
prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1
"Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
history."
*****
DanielSan
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:57:21 -0800, DanielSan <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>How could said proponents agree. NO ONE knows the entire history of the 4.5
>>>billion year geologic history of the world.
>>
>>Then the Bible writers are liars?
>
>
> Nope, pass this on to bubba dud for me. She continues to run from the bible
> accounts of Genesis.
>
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>
> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
> and of mankind."
>
> Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
Faith statement, eh? Sorry, but faith isn't worth the paper it's
printed on. I prefer the scientific account fo the beginning of the
universe or of life.
Faith is worthless to me.
Andy W
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:57:21 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >> How could said proponents agree. NO ONE knows the entire history of the 4.5
> >> billion year geologic history of the world.
> >Then the Bible writers are liars?
>
> Nope, pass this on to bubba dud for me. She continues to run from the bible
> accounts of Genesis.
>
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>
> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
> and of mankind."
The Luke genealogy appears in, well, Luke, not Genesis. Why even
mention it? Genesis has its own genealogy and it is pretty
unambiguous.
>
> Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
Yeah, did that. Came back with some very dull sites. I liked this one
though:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/YU/ay0399.asp
This bit was my favourite:
"Think of Genesis as a play with two acts: the prehistory (Genesis 1-
11), a collection of imaginative stories about the origins of the
world, and the legends of our Hebrew ancestors (Genesis 12-50). The
stories in Genesis were created separately, over a period of at least
a thousand years, and passed by word of mouth from generation to
generation-a process known as oral tradition. The Book of Genesis as
we read it took shape after 500 B.C.
The stories of the prehistory, such as the creation of Adam and Eve,
are all good examples of myths."
>
> *****http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
Looked at that too, fascinating. Apparently God had all sorts of
important stuff to pass on to us so he dictated it to a number of
secretaries over hundreds of years, but he wasn't too bothered if it
got scrambled in the process and didn't bother to proof read it. So to
understand any of it now, you have to try to put yourself in the place
of the guy who wrote down each individual part (without really knowing
who that was), and try to work out what he really meant. Oh, and
apparently "inerrant" means God knew it was true when he dictated it,
but that doesn't mean it made any sense at all when it was written
down. And apparently this method was used as a favour to mankind,
rather than using a more direct and reliable method like burning the
words directly into tablets of stone.
This is all Adam and Eve stuff, nothing here about the flood at all,
nor about when any of this occured.
>
> "Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
> history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
> history."
> *****
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
So let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the world actually
was all under water say, 2 billion years ago. There's no humans. No
mammals. No birds, fish, reptiles or trees, and no boats to put them
in. In fact, there's just early bacteria. In what sense is this the
same as the flood in the Bible?
Andy
Phil MacDouglass
saints "smite" us? HAHA!
Get out of the clouds and realise yer a jackass!
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:883k235a61c7g4192...@4ax.com...
Budikka666
I've addressed this repeatedly with Duke Pukem (aka Duck & Run) and
he...ducks & runs!
The fact is that the Bible does not have chapter and verse - not in
the earliest copies. It's all one text - quite literally: all block
caps, with no punctuation and no vowels.
There is absolutely nowhere in Genesis any suggestion that one Bible
fable differs in any tangible way from another. So I asked Puke to
provide a definition of what it is which makes a given Bible story
prehistory versus another Bible story which is not prehistory. What
is it which definitively draws the line at what we now call Genesis
11?
He can't answer that. Instead, like the pathetic little coward he is,
he runs and hides behind a Bible commentary. Which is as hilarious as
it is ironical: Earl Weber, champion of this god's (purported) word
runs away like a limp Peter at the passion when he's slammed into a
corner! he relies not on any god or any god's word, but upon a
pissant Bible commentary which he neither understands, nor can
justify.
Gen 11 is a continuation of Gen 10 is a continuation of Gen 9, etc,
etc, all the way back to Gen 1.
There's a genealogy in Gen 10, there's a genealogy in Gen 11. Luke
repeats these and nowhere is there any indication that there's any
kind of qualitative difference between them.
The genealogies in Genesis give an unbroken lineage with names of
fathers, sons, and the time between them. These ages add up to some
2K years from Adam to Abram, and date the flood to 890 years before
Abram.
It really is that simple, but Duke is wa-ay too big of an ignoramus
and coward to find the guts to address these issues. Nope. He keeps
running and hiding. And who can blame him? Running away from hard
questions about the facts (even Biblical "facts") which show his
military rank in this "war" to be somewhere around major numbnuts is,
after all, his forte.
Discussing the evidence and the rationale, supporting his claims, and
having the honesty to admit when his position has been shot-to-pieces
is where he habitually and dismally fails. That's only one of the
reasons why he's not worth talking to.
> > *****http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
>
> Looked at that too, fascinating. Apparently God had all sorts of
> important stuff to pass on to us so he dictated it to a number of
> secretaries over hundreds of years, but he wasn't too bothered if it
> got scrambled in the process and didn't bother to proof read it.
This is why I was able to list over 200 lies in the Bible over the
last few months.
> So to
> understand any of it now, you have to try to put yourself in the place
> of the guy who wrote down each individual part (without really knowing
> who that was), and try to work out what he really meant. Oh, and
> apparently "inerrant" means God knew it was true when he dictated it,
> but that doesn't mean it made any sense at all when it was written
> down. And apparently this method was used as a favour to mankind,
> rather than using a more direct and reliable method like burning the
> words directly into tablets of stone.
Or directly into our DNA. But given what a lousy job this god did of
DNA, perhaps it's just as well.
> > So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
> > hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
> > Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
> > uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
> > salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
> > the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
>
> > What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
> > Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
> > any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
> > literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
> > doubted in regard to":
> > 1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
> > 2.) the special creation of man
> > 3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
> > 4.) the unity of the human race
> > 5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
Justice? LoL!
> > integrity,
LoL!
> > and immortality
Never happened. Genesis itself makes that clear.
> > 6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
> > 7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
> > under the form of a serpent
> > 8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
> > 9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
>
> > With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
> > examined more fully by exegetes. So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
> > fundamental to our faith expressed in Genesis ch. 1- 3, the truths around which
> > the ancient Hebraic authors either elaborated a story or collected a popular
> > tradition or recorded a primitive pre-history.
>
> This is all Adam and Eve stuff, nothing here about the flood at all,
> nor about when any of this occured.
Except that when the Pope realized he was on a loser with this literal
Bible bullshit, he had no choice to but beat a hasty retreat in the
face of scientific knowledge - a retreat which the church has been
indulging itself in quite liberally ever since. It's actually one of
the sacraments of the Catholic church. I'm sure that's where Duke, a
LIE long Catholic (so he pretends) learned to run away so effectively.
> > "Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
> > history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
> > history."
> > *****
>
> > duke, American-American
> > *****
> > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> > Pope Paul VI
> > *****
>
> So let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the world actually
> was all under water say, 2 billion years ago. There's no humans. No
> mammals. No birds, fish, reptiles or trees, and no boats to put them
> in. In fact, there's just early bacteria. In what sense is this the
> same as the flood in the Bible?
>
> Andy
Don't expect Hurl to even attempt to address that (not and make sense
at the same time). His "flood any time" came straight out of his dumb
ass, in the face of the fact that there's zero evidence for it and
multiple lines of evidence *against* a global flood, over 60 of which
I've personally listed over the last few months.
Despite repeated requests that he support his claims, he never has
been able to offer support for anything he's said on the topic of a
global flood. He makes the most bizarre of claims, including the one
that perhaps the flood wasn't aimed at humans, but some other "kind"
of sentient, pre-human life-form.
This is what's commonly known as "A Big Fat LIE", since the Bible
itself makes it clear that it was humans who were targeted, that the
flood took place during a time of civilisation, during a time of
viniculture, during a time of advanced boat-building skills.
There weren't any chordates prior to some 550 million years ago, so
that lets anything human-like out of the question, unless Puke is
trying to sell us a flood story that was aimed at civilised
cephalopods (octopus, squid, and the like). LoL!
Since there were no humans (or any bipedal hominids) prior to some 4
million years ago, and no beings of the genus Homo prior to 2.5
million years ago, Duck & Run's 4 billion year scenario is quite
simply a fundamental moron. But that's what you get with Duke. He's
a fluent speaker of Moronese.
The earliest civilisations are known only from some four or five
thousand years ago - civilisations such as the Minoans, the Egyptians,
the Kushites, and cities like Moenjo Daro, so we know the flood didn't
take place prior to that date.
Viniculture is harder to pin down, but it was somewhere between 4K and
10K years ago, and advanced boat-building skills are probably no older
than Egyptian civilization, where sail boats were being built some 5K
years ago.
So all of this places the Noahic flood (according to what the Bible
itself says) well within the last 10K years, and according to Bible
genealogy, some 4.2K - 4.3K years ago. It all fits the Bible story.
Except, of course, that there's zero evidence whatsoever for the
Noahic flood, not 5K years ago, not 10K years ago, not 4 billion years
ago in any form, in any rocks, in any place anywhere on Earth.
In addition, the Bible story makes zero sense unless you interpet it
in the only intelligent way possible: a legend that the Bible writers
purloined from the Sumerians, via the Babylonians, (during the Jewish
exile), based on a true story of a local, extensive flood that was so
old even then, that it had already become a myth.
So if Duck & Run wants to make a case for his 4.5 billion year
blather, he needs to come up with substantially more than what he's
offered so far, which is the cube root of squat.
If he had any credibility at all and wasn't a documented coward and
liar, maybe his opinion, with some rationale, might make the grade
even without evidentiary support, but given what a piece of scum he
is, he's going nowhere fast without even realising he's already there.
Budikka
duke
>http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/YU/ay0399.asp
>This bit was my favourite:
>"Think of Genesis as a play with two acts: the prehistory (Genesis 1-
>11), a collection of imaginative stories about the origins of the
>world, and the legends of our Hebrew ancestors (Genesis 12-50). The
>stories in Genesis were created separately, over a period of at least
>a thousand years, and passed by word of mouth from generation to
>generation-a process known as oral tradition. The Book of Genesis as
>we read it took shape after 500 B.C.
>The stories of the prehistory, such as the creation of Adam and Eve,
>are all good examples of myths."
Ohhhhh, does this mean that even you admit that the flood, even if it happened,
occurred before Abraham in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth?
>So let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the world actually
>was all under water say, 2 billion years ago. There's no humans. No
>mammals. No birds, fish, reptiles or trees, and no boats to put them
>in.
At least not in the sense that we think of birds and animals and trees, etc.
But them again I don't know if there was a literal flood or not. Dummy bud the
dud demands there wasn't, and tries to hang her bra on her factoid that A&E was
just a few years older than Abraham. When all writings re Genesis clearly
spell out the preAbraham period as pre-history.
Now how dumb can she get?
duke
wrote:
>Oh Puke... Why not chant to yer Roamin' Catatonic statues and have those
>saints "smite" us? HAHA!
>Get out of the clouds and realise yer a jackass!
Christian: win/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there
is no almighty God.
Turkey.
Andy W
> On 22 Apr 2007 15:51:35 -0700,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/YU/ay0399.asp
> >This bit was my favourite:
> >"Think of Genesis as a play with two acts: the prehistory (Genesis 1-
> >11), a collection of imaginative stories about the origins of the
> >world, and the legends of our Hebrew ancestors (Genesis 12-50). The
> >stories in Genesis were created separately, over a period of at least
> >a thousand years, and passed by word of mouth from generation to
> >generation-a process known as oral tradition. The Book of Genesis as
> >we read it took shape after 500 B.C.
> >The stories of the prehistory, such as the creation of Adam and Eve,
> >are all good examples of myths."
>
> Ohhhhh, does this mean that even you admit that the flood, even if it happened,
> occurred before Abraham in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth?
I don't think I said any such thing. And I think you knew that. I just
said I liked the article. It amused me.
>
> >So let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the world actually
> >was all under water say, 2 billion years ago. There's no humans. No
> >mammals. No birds, fish, reptiles or trees, and no boats to put them
> >in.
>
> At least not in the sense that we think of birds and animals and trees, etc.
So in what sense could these things have been present on a world only
proven to contain bacteria?
>
> But them again I don't know if there was a literal flood or not. Dummy bud the
> dud demands there wasn't, and tries to hang her bra on her factoid that A&E was
> just a few years older than Abraham. When all writings re Genesis clearly
> spell out the preAbraham period as pre-history.
>
> Now how dumb can she get?
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
You don't know if the flood was real. As far as I can determine,
there's no doctrine that requires you to believe it. I've tried to
find a more diplomatic way to put this but I couldn't, so:
Are you sticking with this line that the flood could have been any
time in the Earth's history, despite an apparent lack of support for
the idea, just to avoid agreeing with Buddika? Sorry, but that's
really the impression I'm getting.
Andy
Dave Oldridge
news:883k235a61c7g4192...@4ax.com:
Bzzzzt! Error. Isochrons require only that the materials be cogenetic,
be closed and that the decay rates did not change while the materials
were aging after whatever geolochemical event formed them.
Nor are radiometric procedures the ONLY way to establish ages for most
strata, just the most reliable ones we have to date. Which is why
creationist liars tend to fib about them a lot and even organize think
tanks (the RATE project, for example) to think up better lies to tell
about them.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
655321
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> No win comes into play if there is no almighty God.
This, Earl, is NOT FAITH. This is a low-value wager, the purchase of a
lottery ticket with pocket change.
The god who is the main character in your Babble demands unmoderated,
unambiguous, unqualified faith. You are not meeting this demand with
your wager.
You should be aware that, if your god exists, you are pissing him off
big-time with your lukewarm pseudo-belief, never mind your ongoing
dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Your response to this post, however, will reveal just how obtuse you are
to this concept.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis
exponebantur ad necem.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi