Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Nice assertion. Why not?

Hydrologic sorting. Take a jar, put some dirt in it, and then fill it the rest of the way with water. Give it a good shake, and the dirt will separate into multiple layers. Now just imagine this on a much grander scale. There is no reason to expect only one layer.

You're talking about a single event that happened over a very short period of time (by neccessity - there is not enough time in your proposed history for it to take more than a few years at most!).

It only took about a year.

But not where you find the old ones. Do try to keep ALL of the requirements straight, please.

We find them in the same places. You need to remember that creationists don't date things by the geologic column like evolutionists do.

Death in the wild is rarely due to old age; however, death by being drowned in a flood would result in some very noticeable differences from, say, death by being eaten. I would not expect flood waters to leave teeth marks, for instance...

And I wouldn't expect an animal that got eaten to become fossilized.

Ah, so now you'll happily bring in yet one more unsupported (and unsupportable) assumption to bolster your claim?

Evolutionists do plenty of that themselves.

Well, given your new "it was all one big happy freshwater lake" notion, that latter MIGHT work - too bad there's absolutely nothing to support THAT idea, either.

Like I said earlier -- the oceans are getting saltier every year.

As far as finding whales, etc., inland, please keep in mind that YOU are proposing something that happened in very recent history, geologically speaking - can you cite even one example of a MODERN whale, say a humpback or orca, being found by some farmer outside of Topeka or some such?

No, nor would I necessarily expect them to find such a thing either. The fast majority of the fossil record is stuff like clams and jellyfish. I think less than five percent are vertebrates. It's not like we've found a whole lot of fossil whales of any kind.

As easy assertion to make, but apparently you've having considerable difficulty SHOWING it.

You can study the evidence for yourself.

If true, that would again be remarkably convenient. Too bad that it isn't true.

Fossils are dated by the geologic column. In other words, they're arbitrarily assigned a date based on the index fossils found in that particular strata. If they can't find any, then they'll radiometrically date the rock around it, but even that's not reliable.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
You mean just as Genesis 5 exaggerated life-spans?

No, I'm talking longer. If you want to get into the pre-flood Sumerian kings (according to their legends anyway), we're talking even longer, as in thousands of years.

Are you saying that a timeline derived from Genesis is NOT to be taken as literally accurate?

No, I'm not saying that.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Yeah, but a lot of these cultures had a tendency to exaggerate their histories. For instance, Sumerian king lists name kings that supposedly ruled over a thousand of years in some cases.

How is it that this is exageration, when the lifespans listed in the Bible is not?

Actually, I agree with you on this point. The Sumerian culture would indeed exagerate their histories (just as many modern people groups do today). But so would the Hebrew culture.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
How is it that this is exageration, when the lifespans listed in the Bible is not?

What would be the point? None of these guys were kings. Furthermore, after the flood, lifespans started tapering off to the point where they were comparable to what we're used to seeing throughout the rest of recorded history.

Actually, I agree with you on this point. The Sumerian culture would indeed exagerate their histories (just as many modern people groups do today). But so would the Hebrew culture.

Well, actually, by the time the Hebrews came around as a culture, people had lifespans that we would consider normal.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What would be the point? None of these guys were kings.

So are you saying Adam, Noah, and the rest of that aged crowd weren't important to the identify of the Hebrew people? Obviously they were just as highly esteemed by the Hebrews as the Summerian kings were to the Summerians. Just because they weren't kings doesn't mean there wasn't any reason to make them (their ancestral heritage) appear greater than they really were.

Legends of grandeur and greatness (be it long life or some other attribute) tend to spring up around people groups leaders, and there's no reason to think the Hebrews were immune to this.

I just find it fascinating that you would arbitrarily label one people groups documented reign of kings as "exagerated" and another people groups recording of excessive age (more than 6 times that of anything witnessed in the post superstitious era) as fact.

Your level of absolute certitude is quite amazing.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
So are you saying Adam, Noah, and the rest of that aged crowd weren't important to the identify of the Hebrew people?

No, I'm not saying that, but from the Hebrew point of view, they were just as important to everybody else's. After all, they believed (as do I) that everyone on Earth was descended from Adam, and after the flood from Noah.

 

[ex_fundy]

I know this post won't change Jacks mind, but there may be some people reading this that actually want to consider new information as they formulate their views.

1) Eden had rivers. Rivers flow down, not on the level. Therefore, according to Genesis, there have always been mountains (small hills simply can't feed rivers). Genesis also says there were "high mountains" before any of the waters receded (Gen. 7:19). So Jacks theory of the earths surface being flat (so the water could rise above it - ignoring the platonics issues) simply isn't supported by the Bible.

2) Given the dimension of the ark and the number of species that have existed and the amount of food required one is faced with a serious space problem. Some YE creationists have theorized (with no scripture to support it) that only young/small versions of each animal were taken into the ark and they went into a hibernation (otherwise, think of all the daily food and excrement to deal with). The YE creationists also attempt to deal with the multitude of known species by claiming only "kinds" (never clearly defined) were taken on the ark. Here are the problems: A) Genesis 6:21 says Noah was to take food on the ark for his family AND the animals. B) The speed of evolutionary change required to go from their supposed "cat" kind to all the variations of cats that have existed is incredible. Jeremiah posted a link last night where one creationist tried to deal with this. If this rapid of evolution is possible within a "kind", why not much slower evolution outside of their "kind"?

3) "All" doesn't always mean "all" in the Bible. Romans 1:8 is one example that comes to mind. Here the phrase "all over the world" obviously is not inclusive of North America or Antartica. In Biblical times, such phrases in the Hebrew or Greek were used to refer to the known world or simply the regional area wherein the writer lived. YE'rs insistence that "all the world" in the context of the flood must mean the entire globe is simply not supported by the common use of such phrases in other parts of the Bible or other ancient writings. This is where the extreme literalists run into trouble.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Those are the only places that are likely to show this sort of thing. You can try going to a library and checking out books on specific cultures. Creationists have compiled this information and put it altogether in one place. You wouldn't expect anybody else to do that, would you?

I would gladly accept a creationist site as a starting point of evidence for these legends being in virtually all cultures. But they must give primary sources, which I can research myself or it's meaningless. So please post a creationist web-site that identifies primary sources for the multitude of world-wide flood stories in various cultures.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
I know this post won't change Jacks mind, but there may be some people reading this that actually want to consider new information as they formulate their views.

1) Eden had rivers. Rivers flow down, not on the level. Therefore, according to Genesis, there have always been mountains (small hills simply can't feed rivers). Genesis also says there were "high mountains" before any of the waters receded (Gen. 7:19).

Genesis 7:19 says "high hills" in my Bible.

So Jacks theory of the earths surface being flat (so the water could rise above it - ignoring the platonics issues) simply isn't supported by the Bible.

I never said it was flat. I said if it were, the oceans would be 10,000 feet deep. I never said it was that deep during the flood either. It might have been that deeper in some places, and more shallow in others.

2) Given the dimension of the ark and the number of species that have existed and the amount of food required one is faced with a serious space problem. Some YE creationists have theorized (with no scripture to support it) that only young/small versions of each animal were taken into the ark and they went into a hibernation (otherwise, think of all the daily food and excrement to deal with). The YE creationists also attempt to deal with the multitude of known species by claiming only "kinds" (never clearly defined) were taken on the ark.

Noah didn't take every kind of animal on board the ark either -- only land-dwelling animals that breathe throught their nostrils. You left that one out.

Here are the problems: A) Genesis 6:21 says Noah was to take food on the ark for his family AND the animals.

So? How is that a problem? The ark was pretty big.

B) The speed of evolutionary change required to go from their supposed "cat" kind to all the variations of cats that have existed is incredible.

Not really. How long do you think it took us to breed wolves into all the different varieties of dogs? There are over 200.

Jeremiah posted a link last night where one creationist tried to deal with this. If this rapid of evolution is possible within a "kind", why not much slower evolution outside of their "kind"?

This is simply microevolution, to which there are genetic limits. You don't have the time or the material required for macroevolution, which has never been proven anyway.

3) "All" doesn't always mean "all" in the Bible. Romans 1:8 is one example that comes to mind. Here the phrase "all over the world" obviously is not inclusive of North America or Antartica.

First of all, it hadn't spread to the Americas yet, although it has now (you can't really expect much in the first few decades, given their methods of travel), and second of all, nobody lived in Antarctica anyway.

In Biblical times, such phrases in the Hebrew or Greek were used to refer to the known world or simply the regional area wherein the writer lived. YE'rs insistence that "all the world" in the context of the flood must mean the entire globe is simply not supported by the common use of such phrases in other parts of the Bible or other ancient writings. This is where the extreme literalists run into trouble.

Not really. The Bible is very specific about the flood being global, and the evidence supports that account.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
I would gladly accept a creationist site as a starting point of evidence for these legends being in virtually all cultures. But they must give primary sources, which I can research myself or it's meaningless. So please post a creationist web-site that identifies primary sources for the multitude of world-wide flood stories in various cultures.

You can start at the site jeremiah listed, here. A google search will turn up many more.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Genesis 7:19 says "high hills" in my Bible.

Is that your idea of research? I did a quick check and found 15 translations that said "mountains" and only 4 that said "hills". Could it be that translation from ancient Hebrew to modern English isn't an exact science and therefore we shouldn't be quite as dogmatic as some people are?

So? How is that a problem? The ark was pretty big.

Try doing the math. Given the dimensions of the ark and the space required to keep animals (2 or some and 7 of others) and their food for around 200 days, and you'll run into quite the crowding issue.

First of all, it hadn't spread to the Americas yet, although it has now (you can't really expect much in the first few decades, given their methods of travel), and second of all, nobody lived in Antarctica anyway.

Funny how you don't even deal with the issue of my clear example that "all" doesn't always mean "all" in the Bible.

Not really. The Bible is very specific about the flood being global, and the evidence supports that account.

I couldn't find the word "global" in my Bible. Are you sure it is very specific about "global" or "all over the world" (kind of like my Romans example where "all" doesn't mean "all")?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You can start at the site jeremiah listed, here. A google search will turn up many more.

No, no, no. You're supposed to be the expert on this issue and creationists sites that support it. I want links, I'm not going to spend hours on general search engines trying to find references you are claiming. I want a link to the best creationist (or any other) site that provides "primary source" evidence for world-wide flood stories in various cultures.

 

[Turbo]

So, the dozen-plus "Secular Flood Legend References" links on that page are of no value to you?

 

[NATEDOG]

The kings of the ancient Sumerians were said to reign for up to 20,000 years. The kings were usually part god part man, and are supposed by some to be associated with the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6 vs 1-4.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by Turbo
So, the dozen-plus "Secular Flood Legend References" links on that page are of no value to you?

I found a lot of dead links. Some links to creationist sites that were simply repeating each other (not giving any verifiable sources for their information). I was really hoping for something more along the lines of a University or Historical Research organization that had actually translated some ancient manuscripts containing such stories.

I did finally find a few intesting sites with decent footnotes (interestingly enough they were secular sites), but many the stories there have about as much in common as written accounts of the assassination of Abraham Lincon and the assassination of Julias Ceasar.

Maybe the story from Tibet is the real way it happened and the Hebrews got it wrong:

"Tibet was almost totally inundated, until the god Gya took compassion on the survivors, drew off the waters through Bengal, and sent teachers to civilize the people, who until then had been little better than monkeys. Those people repopulated the land. "

There are a couple (e.g. the Gilgamesh already discussed here) that have significant similarities with Genesis. But many of the stories are so different I don't know how anyone could consider they were talking about the same event.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Bang Bang Bang…

The sound of reasonable guys like Bmyers and Ex-Fundy banging their heads against the brick wall of Jacks strange myopic worldview.

I have done it before myself.

You cannot win..

Jack ONLY accepts evidence, no matter how tainted or ridiculous or impossible that supports his strange notions and rejects all contrary evidence as being tainted.

Some people still honestly think the World is not round.. Jack is one of those sort of people..

What I find VEREY odd is Jack even flies in the face of his own Christians.. the vast majority who DO not take the Bible literally or have a different interpretation from Jack.

I can just see if God does exist and finally Jack gets to see him.. he would say .. “You took that to mean … WHAT !!.. are you some sort of idiot ?”

 

[Nathon Detroit]

ATTENTION ATHEISTS!!!

Round number 10 of BR VII is not lost! Here is your chance!!!!

 

[Aussie Thinker]

I must admit it would be tempting to take up the challenge but I am clearly not eloquent enough to handle it.

Besides Bob’s debating style is very annoying.

1. He keeps requesting answers to pointless (or unanswerable) questions
2. He doesn’t define questions properly or keeps redefining them
3. He keeps saying question have not been answered when they clearly have been
4. He keeps listing them over and over again in that horrible ZA23 and BQ25 etc etc.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove Gods existence so Bob has to keep arguing in a confusing manner to keep his audience happy. His frustrating long winded diatribes just keep stating the same wrong things over and over in ever more complex ways.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I must admit it would be tempting to take up the challenge but I am clearly not eloquent enough to handle it.

Besides Bob’s debating style is very annoying.

1. He keeps requesting answers to pointless (or unanswerable) questions
2. He doesn’t define questions properly or keeps redefining them
3. He keeps saying question have not been answered when they clearly have been
4. He keeps listing them over and over again in that horrible ZA23 and BQ25 etc etc.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove Gods existence so Bob has to keep arguing in a confusing manner to keep his audience happy. His frustrating long winded diatribes just keep stating the same wrong things over and over in ever more complex ways.

Whatever you say.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Is that your idea of research? I did a quick check and found 15 translations that said "mountains" and only 4 that said "hills". Could it be that translation from ancient Hebrew to modern English isn't an exact science and therefore we shouldn't be quite as dogmatic as some people are?

I dunno, my Bible is a word-for-word translation.

Try doing the math.

Sure, as soon as you tell me exactly how many animals were taken aboard.

Given the dimensions of the ark and the space required to keep animals (2 or some and 7 of others) and their food for around 200 days, and you'll run into quite the crowding issue.

Not necessarily. It's very likely that Noah didn't have to take as many animals as you're imagining.

Funny how you don't even deal with the issue of my clear example that "all" doesn't always mean "all" in the Bible.

But sometimes it does. You have to learn to be able to differentiate between an idiom and a statement of fact.

I couldn't find the word "global" in my Bible. Are you sure it is very specific about "global" or "all over the world" (kind of like my Romans example where "all" doesn't mean "all")?

I'm very sure. I've studied this issue thoroughly. Have you?