Survey about creationism

[Ben Kenobi]

Kontiki:

I think Boris was looking for a shred of scientific proof that there could have been a global flood. You seem to subscribe to the scientific notions of carbon dating and, I'll assume, geology.

Most people subscribing to a world-wide flood don't base their arguments on the prevailing scientific theories.

Boris asked for a persuasive argument, and those passages are the ones that cause problems for the local flood interpretation.

AS:
Interesting, but I'm not sure that accounts for a worldwide flood. Local flood for sure, but global?

[Al B. Sure!]

Obiwan:

Scientists know the best about the flooding in the Mediterenean because there has been archaelogy and research done in that area for centuries. The melting of the ice caps had global effect and it is almost definite that if flooding occured in the mediterenean, it also occured everywhere else in the world. Not any world-wide flood that would engulf the land but significant flooding throughout all coastal areas


thanks

[Ben Kenobi]

Albert:

Not any world-wide flood that would engulf the land but significant flooding throughout all coastal areas

Then you defend a local flood event, unlike passages such as this:

Gen 7:20-21
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'll sum my answers up in one sentence: Creationism is blatantly false, and the existance of God is subject to Occam's Razor: whether or not it is true has no discernable effect, and therefore can be said to be untrue.

You don't know what occam's razor means, dude. It does not speak of certainties or absolutes. It simply says that the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. It doesn't say that it is.

Anyways, isn't CyberShy a creationist as well?

And guys, the most recent astronomical data shows the Universe (as we know it) to be roughly 14.7 billion years old. We recently got a very accurate picture.

[Al B. Sure!]

Obi-wan:

the other thing to note is that the flooding off the melting of the ice caps would not occur all at once as Genesis seems to indicate (unless you figure that the 40 days and 40 nights represents even longer as the number 40 usually does in the bible) but gradually over several years but still noticable to anyone living along the coast.

neverthless, the Aegean sea area once being mostly land and then becoming a sea in a matter of a few years (and the same sort of thing occuring all over the world) would appear to be significant flooding. Enough to do considerable damage to Neolithic settlements and alter the ways of life of many peoples


thanks

[Al B. Sure!]

it should be noted that before the Ice Age, the Sahara and the middle east were forests... vast climatic changes occured with the end of the ice age. Considering how information can be amazingly passed down in oral traditions, pre-bronze age Sumerians and what not no doubt heard about how life was only a few hundred years before and probably figured there was an attempted end of the world and that they were living in the remnants of that world.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Survey about creationism

Originally posted by Vesayen
1. How old is the Universe?

Estimations range between 18 to 37 billion years old(I think ~ 28'sh myself)





2. How old is the Earth?

8.3 billion years old(give or take 1 or 200 hundred million)

You're 20% to 115% too high on your first figure and 70% too high on your second.

14 billion is the most recent estimate, IIRC (as of a month ago) and 4.5 for the earth.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Albert:
Then you defend a local flood event, unlike passages such as this:

Gen 7:20-21
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

How do they know it was more than 20 feet? Maybe it was only more than 15, or more than 50. Was Noah out there doing scientific measurements?

Just wondering.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Albert:



Then you defend a local flood event, unlike passages such as this:

Gen 7:20-21
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

There's not enough water on the earth to do this (not by a long shot)

Where did it all go?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by obiwan18
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."

Do Christians' have to write the LORD's name in all caps? Is it the same thing with GOD? And why don't they write THE LORD, or at least The LORD, instead of just The Lord? And will I go to hell if I use all lower case when writing the lord, or god?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Gen 7:20-21
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Okay. Since Mount Everest is more than 8800 meters tall, that had to be a lot of water.

That naturally prompted these two questions:

1. Where did the water come from?
2. Where did it all go?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, I do. Occam's razor says that if something's existance is irrelevent, it can be said not to exist.

[Lorizael]

It can be said not to exist for sake of argument, doesn't mean it doesn't physically exist. And determining what is irrelavent is rather difficult, actually.

Note that I do not believe in God, so I do agree with you, but just don't speak in such absolutes. It doesn't make you look good. People tend not to want to agree with people that speak in absolutes, so you're not gonna get your point across very well that way.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Genesis 6:5-8

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."

The key hinges on the interpretation of earth as applying to the whole world or to part. Of this I am not sure.

So close, now how about Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33? There were survivors of the Flood in that area. Certainly people and animals around the Globe survived whatever happened in Noah's part of the world.

Strict creationists just boggle my mind. Yeah, the world is full of evil when everyone's a vegetarian. Lets start all over and now let all the animals kill and eat each other and it will be much better. And what, God's pissed he made a mistake? What kind of omnipotent, omniscient God is that?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Most people subscribing to a world-wide flood don't base their arguments on the prevailing scientific theories.

Bingo.

A world-wide flood is simply an impossibility, as there does not exist enough water to raise to the levels described in the Bible. A literal interpretation is impossible on many levels, as the amount of water described descending in a mere 40 days and nights would also have been an impossibility, not to mention it would have left buttloads of evidence, and yet none exists for it.