Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
I'm still researching but, just a note: If the oceans are lowered and the mountains raised during the flood, you don't need as much water as you indicated.
No, that's true, you'll just destroy the surface of the earth instead with the energy requirement for moving it around so rapidly.
And you cannot escape the requirement for absolutely *vast* quantities of water if you accept that mountains existed prior to the flood (as Genesis says they did)
We had a lot of snow last night.
Can't you get it round your head? Normal rain is no use to your theory in *any* quantity... it is oceanic precipitation.
"I'm still researching but, just a note: If the oceans are lowered and the mountains raised during the flood, you don't need as much water as you indicated."
I am still researching, but didn't you get this backwards?
Good Morning!
LOL
Oops!
I knew what you meant, slips of the keyboard don't matter.
If there was no rain before the flood, the body of atmospheric water must be relocated in our equation, that's all.
Good morning and Merry Christmas to you!
Interesting summary of Mt. Ararat research, poorly referenced : http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2658
As a Christian you will be forgiven for your greivous error. ;-)
Noah's Ark: I don't know enough details to consider myself any kind of expert but, looking at the whole story, it fits together. You're right, the rain was not the only source of water. Here are a few things to consider:
Traditional understanding is that much of the water came from huge underground caverns, which collapsed, causing their contents to spew out. IOW, the pre-deluvian ocean surface was much smaller. Such caverns still exist under Florida.
B: The caverns in Florida are a result of groundwater effects on limestone. Neither the volume of caverns or groundwater in Florida amount to anything remotely needed for a Noachian deluge. It is a myth. Sorry.
Another source of water is "the floodgates of heaven." A few years ago, it was discovered that the earth is constantly colliding with huge masses of ice crystals lying along its orbital path.
B:? Reference? The Earth peridoically is probably struck by comets. However, the amount of water need to produce the Noachian deluge would require many comets, which also contain copious amounts of poison gases. You don't know what you are talking about, or you didn't understand what you heard or read. "Big Ice crystals" in its path. Really.
The apparent source of these crystals is - earth. We leave them behind as vapour and pick them back up, later. I suspect this process was somehow involved, as well.
B: You're babbling, sorry. There is no scientific justification for anything you've written.
The account indicates the flood as the first rain ever. That's quite a claim. If true, there must have been some massive atmospheric changes, as well.
B: And miraculously Noah and his family were supplied pressure suits.
Finally, another odd phrase is "the water covered all the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits." Well, all the mountains are not the same heighth.
B: Sez who? It doesn't say that in the Bible. Again we have a literalist interpreting the Bible to suit his own needs. So much for "Biblical Literalism".
I believe a tidal wave is being described here - one large enough to travel around the whole earth. The Scandinavian and pacific island accounts indicate something of this nature, as well.
B: Beliefs don't constitue evidence or facts. And tsunamis don't leave deposits which resemble the totality of the geologic column. Your fantasies have nothing to do with modern science.
P. S. There is no way of knowing where Noah lived, prior to the flood. We only know he landed somewhere between Turkey and Egypt.
B: We don't know anything, as there was never a Noachian Deluge. Most likely there was a local catastrophic flood in Asia minor some thousands of years ago. THe story of Noah is simply the Epic of Gilgamesh turned into a morality play.
A collection of verses pertaining to subterranian waters:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/wute.html
B: Which is bunch of nonsense, and Doug Cox was debunked on talk.origins years ago. If you like you can pick the tone or two arguments from thsi site and we can go through it again.
This guy: http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2658 says, "Plus, scientists believe our atmosphere holds well over 40 trillion gallons of water at any given time. Every single day of the year, approximately 4 trillion gallons fall to the Earth in the form of rain."
Can anyone verify?
B: Even if Correct, we don't have a Noachian flood everyday, so what is your point?
If you wish to say Noah's flood was a miracle, just say so, and the argument is over. If you wish to argue that the evidence seen by scientists was planted by Satan, just say so and the argument is over. It is really futile to try to reconcile geology with miracles. People have been trying for 500 years and the results continue to diverge.
I'm not claiming to "know" anything. 255 was meant as a framework for answering the question, not a final pronouncement. So, don't simply respond with "You don't know what you're talking about." Such a statement, no matter how truthful, is non-germaine. I would much rather read: "Here's how things really went," or, "Here's why that doesn't work."
You'll notice I try to leave this thread alone both when it becomes a flame war and when useful links are given, which I take time out to read.
Do you suggest any links to succinct summaries of said results? I'd like to read them. Google does not distinguish between legitimate research and tinfoil-hat ravings...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.