Creation vs. Evolution

[Stripe]

Well that is certainly impressive. Have you read it in the original Greek or are you just showing off your cut and paste skills.

Both.

The word eretz is used in this verse, clearly talking about the entire planet.

Perhaps you'd like to correct your fellow evolutionists instead of trying to mock me. :up:

The word "vast" is clearly a relative and contextual term. In the context of the whole universe the entire solar system can't really be described as vast. In the context of a supposed global flood here below is a representation of all the Earth's water sitting very comfortably over America. In terms of a global flood am I really being "unreasonable"?

Yes. That water covers the planet to an average depth of more than 2km. When talking about floods, that is vast; moreso when we realize there is a lot more water now locked inside the Earth.

So in fact you can't show me anything that you consider to be geological evidence of the Bible then?

You don't care about evidence, remember? You care about popularity. Go away until you learn what it takes to engage rationally. :up:

There is no such thing a micro or macro evolution.

We know. :up:

If you have evidence of specifically your God and creation then by all means do present it and I will honestly interpret it as I see it, but not according to any agenda not to believe. My agenda is to believe what actually is true from the evidence rather than what is supposed or believed by faith alone.

:darwinsm:

Said the moron who blindly accepts the popular vote.

 

[alwight]

. That water covers the planet to an average depth of more than 2km. When talking about floods, that is vast; moreso when we realize there is a lot more water now locked inside the Earth.

The picture represented all the water on Earth Stripe, salt and fresh, there is no more.

You don't care about evidence, remember? You care about popularity. Go away until you learn what it takes to engage rationally. :up:

Clearly nobody is going to learn anything from you Stripe, other than how to be obnoxious the whole time perhaps. :think:

Said the moron who blindly accepts the popular vote.

Said the moron who blindly accepts as historical fact and literally true, words written in a much translated ancient scripture, originally for the benefit of ancient middle eastern goat herders. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

The picture represented all the water on Earth Stripe, salt and fresh, there is no more.

Nope. There is lots more locked up beneath the Earth's surface.

And the water in your image covers the Earth to an average depth of more than 2km. When we are talking about floods, "vast" is an understatement.

Clearly nobody is going to learn anything from you Stripe, other than how to be obnoxious the whole time perhaps.

I don't want you to learn anything from me; I want you to engage rationally.

Said the moron who blindly accepts as historical fact and literally true, words written in a much translated ancient scripture, originally for the benefit of ancient middle eastern goat herders.

Nope. Evidence, remember? That is what matters when assessing the truth of a matter. You prefer popularity to guide you.

 

[alwight]

Nope. There is lots more locked up beneath the Earth's surface.

And the water in your image covers the Earth to an average depth of more than 2km. When we are talking about floods, "vast" is an understatement.

No, the picture included all the Earth's water.

I don't want you to learn anything from me; I want you to engage rationally.

No you don't, you want me to go away. lain:

Nope. Evidence, remember? That is what matters when assessing the truth of a matter. You prefer popularity to guide you.

Perhaps you can show evidence of vast hidden water reserves currently unknown to science?

 

[Stripe]

No, the picture included all the Earth's water.

Nope. There is a lot more water locked within the Earth.

No you don't, you want me to go away. lain:

Either way is fine. :thumb:

Perhaps you can show evidence of vast hidden water reserves currently unknown to science?

Nope. I can only show the vast reserves that are known to science. lain:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope. I can only show the vast reserves that are known to science. lain:

Not for to much longer as the ice caps are melting.

 

[Stripe]

Not for to much longer as the ice caps are melting.

Is it your sole purpose in life to make useless comments that have nothing to do with the conversation?

 

[alwight]

Nope. There is a lot more water locked within the Earth.

I'd much rather believe scientific conclusions than yours Stripe.

Either way is fine. :thumb:

Either way I'll still be doing it my way.

Nope. I can only show the vast reserves that are known to science. lain:

The image I posted was scientific, are you suggesting that science is knowingly holding back the truth? :sherlock:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And as you already know, the Bible doesn't say the flood was worldwide.

Sure it does.

Nope. And your failure to show us that it does, is compelling evidence.

Barbarian, earlier:
(The word "eretz", meaning "land" is here translated as earth, and properly uncapitalized, since it doesn't mean "Earth.")

Yep... It can mean a certain area, But context tells us it was the whole earth...

In fact, it says "under heaven", which was the usage for "as far as the eye could see."

As you know, it doesn't say the whole world.

Same as the word is used elsewhere in scripture.

It's used elsewhere for the land of Israel, the individual holdings of various people, the general area around israel, but never for the entire world.

Barbarian observes:
And notice even your re-interpretation acknowledges that the mountains existed before any Noachin flood.

Reinterpretation?

Yep. Mountains, as you see, were not raised up by a universal flood. (floods don't build up land; they erode it away)

And, of course, "land" does not mean "entire Earth."

 

[The Barbarian]

The Ogalala aquifer is not a big underground lake. It's a layer of water-saturated rock, apparently mostly paleowater, from the last ice age. It's replenishing much more slowly than water is being drawn from it, and it could be effectively removed in just a few decades, at the present rate. And such groundwater is far, far too limited to have provided a worldwide flood.

 

[Stripe]

The image I posted was scientific, are you suggesting that science is knowingly holding back the truth? :sherlock:

Nope. I'm saying you're ignorant. The image represents water from oceans, lakes, ice rivers and groundwater.

There is a lot more water locked within the Earth that is not represented.

 

[6days]

Barbarian observes:

And muses...and contemplates how he might further compromise scripture.

And as you already know, the Bible doesn't say the flood was worldwide.

Sure it does....its just that you don't believe it.

(The word "eretz", meaning "land" is here translated as earth, and properly uncapitalized, since it doesn't mean "Earth.")

Yep... It can mean a certain area, But context tells us it was the whole earth...

In fact, it says "under heaven", which was the usage for "as far as the eye could see."

Laughing at how illogical you can be... and the lengths you go to to invent narratives contradicting God.

So God had Noah spending 100 years building a large ship to escape a local flood.*

And although many birds can fly thousands of miles at a time...the birds drowned? The animals didn't flee? *And God promised never to send local floods again with the rainbow? *Etc etc...*

(Apply your definition 'far as the eye can see' throughout scripture to see how illogical your explanation is)

Same as the word is used elsewhere in scripture.

It's used elsewhere for the land of Israel, the individual holdings of various people, the general area around israel, but never for the entire world.

You were previously shown that is false. Once again you are either dishonest...or very forgetful.

Check:

Genesis 18:18,25;*Genesis 22:18

Genesis 12:3

Jeremiah 25:26,29,30;*Jeremiah 26:6

Isaiah 37:16,20

Kings 19:15

2 Kings 19:19

Zechariah 4:10

Zechariah 4:1

Barbarian observes

Oh no... more Barbarian compromise on the way?

Yep. Mountains, as you see, were not raised up by a universal flood. (floods don't build up land; they erode it away)

We both agree. The flood destroyed the earth that was.*


We also agree that floods don't raise mountains...Nobody suggested such a thing so you are creating another strawman. However, God's Word *does tell us the mountains did rise and valleys sank.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

I can imagine that the valleys did sink, so that the waters could be more quickly abated on the earth. Do you know what I'm saying here? Also, there is tons more sea water than land, right? Plus tons of rain and also aquifers. That's a lot of water that could flood the land, right? And chances are that, because of that global flood, the tectonic plates probably moved, and there were more continents than there was beforehand. Like I would say from two continents to what we have now. Now tectonic plates moving into each other creates mountains indeed. There's a LOT of water in, on, and above the Earth (I mean also the torrential rain that fell).

You're right, 6days, why would God have Noah build such a huge boat for 100 years for a 'local' flood?? If all of the people were on one or two continents, and all there was was one or two continents, then surely a Great Flood could happen. Don't forget about lakes also. If there are only two continents of land, then surely the seas could cover them, especially if the continents sank some during the flood. Do you know what I'm saying here?

You're one smart cookie, 6days. I'm glad to know you!!

May God Increase Your Countenance!! That Is The Best That I Could Hope For You!!

Michael

 

[Ardima]

The word "vast" is clearly a relative and contextual term. In the context of the whole universe the entire solar system can't really be described as vast. In the context of a supposed global flood here below is a representation of all the Earth's water sitting very comfortably over America. In terms of a global flood am I really being "unreasonable"?

So you take this representation as fact? Are you sure it represents all the water? The link declares it as a representation of fresh water... Besides that, there is no way to measure the volume of all the water of the earth so that representation is very unscientific...

So in fact you can't show me anything that you consider to be geological evidence of the Bible then?

So in fact, what I cosider evidence does not matter in the least to someone who cant logically come to the truth of the origin of the universe... and you do realize what the term "universe" implies right?

To not do any of these things however does not require any faith. I am convinced of my car's existence therefore I can put my faith in it. But I put no more faith in the God of the Bible than you presumably do in all those other supposed gods that both you and I don't believe in, i.e. none at all.

It is impossible to not do anything, and faith is required to do anything. The fact that anything exists is evidence that God exists (At least according to scientific laws and math).

Now you're just being silly, my agenda of disbelief, really?

Am I? Without God there is no morality. Without God man does not need to be accountable for anything he does. Disbelief is a major agenda for many...

You may see evidence of your God in what you see around you but I don't, I just recognise the evidence without concluding that any specific god can be deduced from it.

If you were half as objective as you claim you would see that neither a specific god nor evolution could be deduced from it.

There is no such thing as "micro or macro evolution"

Agreed. Can you do me a favor and tell that to all of the people that write the public school system's biology text books?

only evolution which is an evidenced and observed fact as far as I'm concerned, evidence that creationist will rather avoid.

World origin evolution is not a fact. It is a theory as is Creation. Any real scientist knows this and would never claim either as scientific fact. Only evolution as we observe it today is fact (changes we have actually observed such as mutations) and it has only been observed as inimical and not progressive.

If you have evidence of specifically your God and creation then by all means do present it and I will honestly interpret it as I see it, but not according to any agenda not to believe.

We have been been over the whole "as I see it thing."

My agenda is to believe what actually is true from the evidence rather than what is supposed or believed by faith alone.

The problem is evidence, actually everything, has become subjective. To many people there are no longer any absolutes. This has damaged religion and science alike. I do not doubt your sencerity but it is impossible for anyone to truly be unbiased. The question really isn't about Creation vs. Evolution anyway. The question is: does a necessary being exist?

There is no such thing as faith alone. This is one thing that Christians say that irritates me. Faith is based on the evidence of things not seen which means there has to be something observed first in order for the existence of evidence in which faith is placed. This is true for both sides of the tracks.

The only way I will ever conceed to Evolution is when we are able to create a completely synthetic life; which is impossible because that would require scientists to create matter.

 

[Stripe]

So you take this representation as fact? Are you sure it represents all the water? The link declares it as a representation of fresh water... Besides that, there is no way to measure the volume of all the water of the earth so that representation is very unscientific.

Don't give that moron ammunition to keep pretending he has contributed something useful. The image shows an accurate representation of the volume of water in the oceans and groundwater as compared with the Earth.

 

[Ardima]

Don't give that moron ammunition to keep pretending he has contributed something useful. The image shows an accurate representation of the volume of water in the oceans and groundwater as compared with the Earth.

Accurate? Not in the least.. Accurate in mathimatical estimations maybe, but we all know how those turn out. i.e. moon dust and such.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

And it is written that God separated the waters which were above the firmament from the waters which were below the firmament. And the firmament He called Heaven. If you can't understand this, I think 6days can.

Best Wishes And Cheerio!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Ardima,

I'm very sorry. I got mixed up. I hope you forgive me. It's corrected now. The water below the firmament He called Seas, lakes, aquifers, rivers, creeks, etc. That's A LOT of water.

Michael

 

[Ardima]

Dear Ardima,

I'm sorry I was referring to the wrong person here. I see you are including the aquifer water which is under the Earth, as portrayed by how much it covers the U.S. Yes, the U.S. has the largest known aquifer in the world. But there could be more water that we don't know about. And look at ALL of that SEA!! That's a lot of water that could cover land, especially if we had only two or more continents back BEFORE the Great Flood. Now after the Great Flood, we could have all of the continents we have now, but what about before it? It could have just been two continents or so. You can see how our continents tend to 'fit together.' No? Let me know what you think.

Lets say that the theory of Pangaea is correct and there was only one super-continent before the flood. All living things would be on this one continent would they not? most of the surface of the earth was water anyway and with the waters above and below coming together it could easily flood the one continent which would technically be a "local flood" because you cant flood something that is already covered in water.

On the other hand, lets say the continents were much like they are today. We know that Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden and were eventually kicked out after "the fall." Since these two humans were the origin of all humanity, it is not unreasonable to say that the children that they had only expanded away from the epicenter of the human race as deemed necessary by the growth of the human race. Since this is most logical, the flood only needed to cover the area in which the human race had expanded. More than once "the whole earth" is in context with only the portion that was inhabited by man. So when God promised never to flood the whole earth again He meant that He would never destroy the human race again with a flood.

After the terrain change brought about by the releasing of the fountains of the deep, and the change in the atmosphere and climate from the torrential rain, an ice age (this is when the descendants of Shem could have crossed into the Americas) would have ensued pushing rock dirt and gravel along the edge of the expanding ice. These ridges would then contain the water causing massive damns that would come from the ice finally melting. When the pressure was too much, the damns would give way and the resulting tumult of water would then carve great canyons and caves in a very short amount of time.

And it is written that God separated the waters which were above the firmament from the waters which were below the firmament. And the firmament He called Heaven. If you can't understand this, I think 6days can.

Best Wishes And Cheerio!!

Michael

I believe what this passage is explaining is some kind of atmospheric water barrier (like the ozone layer but with water or ice) which could have caused greater saturation of oxygen and around twice the air pressure we observe today. It would explain why the human lifespan went from centuries to decades as they adapted to the current pressure. Experimentation of this has proved that such things as healing and vegetation growth are much improved under such controlled conditions.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Lets say that the theory of Pangaea is correct and there was only one super-continent before the flood. All living things would be on this one continent would they not? most of the surface of the earth was water anyway and with the waters above and below coming together it could easily flood the one continent which would technically be a "local flood" because you cant flood something that is already covered in water.

On the other hand, lets say the continents were much like they are today. We know that Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden and were eventually kicked out after "the fall." Since these two humans were the origin of all humanity, it is not unreasonable to say that the children that they had only expanded away from the epicenter of the human race as deemed necessary by the growth of the human race. Since this is most logical, the flood only needed to cover the area in which the human race had expanded. More than once "the whole earth" is in context with only the portion that was inhabited by man. So when God promised never to flood the whole earth again He meant that He would never destroy the human race again with a flood.

After the terrain change brought about by the releasing of the fountains of the deep, and the change in the atmosphere and climate from the torrential rain, an ice age (this is when the descendants of Shem could have crossed into the Americas) would have ensued pushing rock dirt and gravel along the edge of the expanding ice. These ridges would then contain the water causing massive damns that would come from the ice finally melting. When the pressure was too much, the damns would give way and the resulting tumult of water would then carve great canyons and caves in a very short amount of time.

I believe what this passage is explaining is some kind of atmospheric water barrier (like the ozone layer but with water or ice) which could have caused greater saturation of oxygen and around twice the air pressure we observe today. It would explain why the human lifespan went from centuries to decades as they adapted to the current pressure. Experimentation of this has proved that such things as healing and vegetation growth are much improved under such controlled conditions.

Dear Ardima,

I guess I would wonder if there were only two continents. I know that is what will be in the future: Gog and Magog. Right? I will chat with you more tomorrow.

Thanks so much. God's Best For You And Your Loved Ones!!

Michael

:jazz: