[_ Old Earth _] In schools

[Vic C.]

Syntax, I like it! May I borrow it from time to time?

 

[mh13]

Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 7:37 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to see the verse that says if Jesus repeats an allegory, that changes it from allegory to literal history.

Or alternately, where Jesus says the Flood story is not allegorical.

Or maybe, that we can show Jesus never spoke in parables or allegory.

Can you show me one of those?

First you need to show where you would get the idea from scripture that the flood is an allegory. Jesus doesn't need to specifically say that the Genesis flood isn't an allegory, the people of his day and christians in general have always understood the flood as literal until compromisers tried to mix Darwin's religion with christianity. Read the context of the passage and you can see that Jesus uses a literal past judgment to warn of a literal future judgment. The future judgment wouldn't make any sense if the past judgment didn't even happen! But then I guess you'll tell me that the judgment to come is only an allegory too, right?

Why is that that because Jesus used parables at times to CONVEY LITERAL TRUTH that people use that as a license to scoff at the word of God?

 

[Barbarian]

First you need to show where you would get the idea from scripture that the flood is an allegory.

It's pretty clear that an Ark that size, if built by four men, would have rotted in the oldest part, before the newest part was finished. There are far too many land animals to possible fit in the Ark, there is not enough water to cover the highest mountains, the genetic evidence shows that there are far too many human alleles to have come from eight people ten thousand years ago, even with evolution at rates far beyond anything we can imagine, a wooden ship would have flexed and leaked beyond the capability of 8 people to bail, the feeding and care of the animals would require round-the-clock work for scores of people, the hold would have filled up with wastes... how much time have you got?

Jesus doesn't need to specifically say that the Genesis flood isn't an allegory, the people of his day and christians in general have always understood the flood as literal until compromisers tried to mix Darwin's religion with christianity.

Nope. That's wrong, too. As you seem to now realize, Jesus didn't say that Genesis was literal. That's a start.

Read the context of the passage and you can see that Jesus uses a literal past judgment to warn of a literal future judgment.

He didn't say that, either. You want to believe that's what it is, so you assume that's what he meant.

The future judgment wouldn't make any sense if the past judgment didn't even happen!

What makes you think that?

Why is that that because Jesus used parables at times to CONVEY LITERAL TRUTH that people use that as a license to scoff at the word of God?

I don't think you're scoffing. I think you're uncomfortable with some things in scripture, and you want to interpret them in a more acceptable way.

 

[mh13]

You have still failed to show any evidence from the scripture that would indicate that the flood is to be taken allegorically. All you have done theorize and scoff at the word of God. Show me where we are told IN SCRIPTURE to not take what God said seriously.

But anyway...

It's pretty clear that an Ark that size, if built by four men, would have rotted in the oldest part, before the newest part was finished.

Nope.
Genesis 6:14 (KJV)
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
God had already thought about the rotting of wood and had Noah coat it.

There are far too many land animals to possible fit in the Ark

Wrong again. Noah didn't have to bring every single type of dog and every single type of cat, etc onto the ark. Only each kind of animal. But how can you prove that the animals wouldn't have fit into the ark?

there is not enough water to cover the highest mountains

You have assumptions based upon what we observe today. The windows of heaven were broken up, plus the fountains of the deep. There once was much more water under the earth's crust. There weren't extremely tall mountains before the flood either. The mountains arose and valleys sank down after the flood.
Psalm 104:5-9 (KJV)
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. [6] Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. [7] At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. [8] They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. [9] Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

It is also interesting to note that Mt. Everest has petrified clams in the closed position.

the feeding and care of the animals would require round-the-clock work for scores of people, the hold would have filled up with wastes... how much time have you got?

As far as the waste goes, there could have been a moon pool in the center of the ark. This is from Creation Science Evangelism's website, http://www.drdino.com
The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.

You are also forgetting the supernatural element to all of this.
Genesis 7:16 (KJV)
And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

Quote:
Jesus doesn't need to specifically say that the Genesis flood isn't an allegory, the people of his day and christians in general have always understood the flood as literal until compromisers tried to mix Darwin's religion with christianity.


Nope. That's wrong, too. As you seem to now realize, Jesus didn't say that Genesis was literal. That's a start.

Jesus didn't have to say Genesis was literal, He just assumes that the scriptures are believed like they are supposed to be.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/dnftt.jpg
Syntax, I like it! May I borrow it from time to time?

Here's the sight I get it from:
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/index.htm

 

[Featherbop]

Is it just me, or are some topics here in Creation evolution switching to the validity of the Bible?

The disscussion seems to have nothing to do with evolution and creation anymore.

 

[mh13]

Is it just me, or are some topics here in Creation evolution switching to the validity of the Bible?

The disscussion seems to have nothing to do with evolution and creation anymore.

Yes it is going in that direction. Sorry, I can't help it...I can't stand when people who claim to be christians scoff at the Bible. But the scoffers won't be convinced that God means what He says no matter how much scripture you produce.

I'll bail on this topic and let the rest you guys get back to the subject.

 

[Barbarian]

You have still failed to show any evidence from the scripture that would indicate that the flood is to be taken allegorically.

Other than the numerous impossibilities in the story. And you've failed to find any evidence that it is literal.

All you have done theorize and scoff at the word of God.

Nope. In fact, I'm merely letting scripture tell me what it is.

Show me where we are told IN SCRIPTURE to not take what God said seriously.

If you want to prove that, it's up to you to provide evidence for it.

Barbarian observes:
It's pretty clear that an Ark that size, if built by four men, would have rotted in the oldest part, before the newest part was finished.

Nope.
Genesis 6:14 (KJV)
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
God had already thought about the rotting of wood and had Noah coat it.

Navies always used such things. But still, ships rot. Few of them last more than a few decades. Unless you want a miracle to help you out here.

There are far too many land animals to possible fit in the Ark

Wrong again. Noah didn't have to bring every single type of dog and every single type of cat, etc onto the ark. Only each kind of animal.

But that won't work either. If it's only been about 10,000 years since the Ark, that would require that new species of large vertebrates evolve into existence monthly. Someone would have noticed and commented on it.

But how can you prove that the animals wouldn't have fit into the ark?

There have been over a million speicies of mammals and birds identified. There's no possible way to get even a fraction of them into the Ark, much less reptiles and amphibians. The vast majority of them could not have survived in the flood for a year.

Barbarian observes:
there is not enough water to cover the highest mountains

You have assumptions based upon what we observe today.

Unless you want to explain where the water went, that's what you have to work with.

The windows of heaven were broken up,

There are no "windows" up there. The passage claiming that the sky has windows through which rain falls is figurative. The sky is not actually a big dome with windows.

plus the fountains of the deep. There once was much more water under the earth's crust.

Couldn't be. You see, the crust is only about 7 km deep over oceans and no more than 40 km deep over the relatively sparse continents. If the rock had kilometers of free water mixed in it, it would be mush.

There weren't extremely tall mountains before the flood either.

Genesis says otherwise. If you want to claim that it's all literal, you can't pick and choose which parts you want to be literal and which parts not.

The mountains arose and valleys sank down after the flood.
Psalm 104:5-9 (KJV)
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. [6] Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. [7] At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. [8] They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. [9] Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

This does not say mountains rose, or valleys fell. It says water retreated.

It is also interesting to note that Mt. Everest has petrified clams in the closed position.

Mt. Everest is made of fossilized sea creatures. But if you want to claim that they are from the flood, that would mean that it had to be there for the flood. So you still have to account for all that water.

BTW, Mt. Everest is sea bottom. It's very folded and broken, because it was thrown up gradually over millions of years when the Indian subcontinent pushed into Asia. It's still going on, and we are measuring the uplift and movement of the crust.

the feeding and care of the animals would require round-the-clock work for scores of people, the hold would have filled up with wastes... how much time have you got?

As far as the waste goes, there could have been a moon pool in the center of the ark. This is from Creation Science Evangelism's website, http://www.drdino.com

Another addition to scripture? How much fixing up will it take? And a "moon pool" won't solve the problem. We'll show why, below.

The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.

Won't work for wooden ships. They are of wood joinery. That means that in waves, they flex, and they leak and spring loose, if they are very large. That's why truely huge wooden ships were not made.

The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.

The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.

Won't work. You see, if the "moon pool" was open below the water line, water would rush in and sink the Ark. So the garbage still had to be carried to the top and thown out. And ventilation in the hold would still be a problem.

You are also forgetting the supernatural element to all of this.

If you add enough unscriptural miracles, anything is possible.

Jesus doesn't need to specifically say that the Genesis flood isn't an allegory, the people of his day and christians in general have always understood the flood as literal until compromisers tried to mix Darwin's religion with christianity.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. That's wrong, too. As you seem to now realize, Jesus didn't say that Genesis was literal. That's a start.

Jesus didn't have to say Genesis was literal, He just assumes that the scriptures are believed like they are supposed to be.

Rather, you just assumed that's what He thought.

Here's a place to learn about more problems with a literal Ark story:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... l#building

This isn't about the validity of the Bible; it's about the validity of the rather unusual assumptions you have about it.

 

[Guest]

After all this repetition of unsupported arguments and basis bereft comments from blue, there remains only this to be said:
Please do not feed the troll.

:B-fly: precious,I am not a troll,I just can't argue with Lord Kelvin,and the way I understand the Bible,it all went the way God says it did,and everything is happening even now just as he says it will,amen.
Find out who Lord Kelvin was and help yourself flee from fairytales and fables of the end times. You'll feel much better,amen.

 

[Barbarian]

The story blue is referring to, I think, was the argument between Kelvin and Darwin on the age of the earth.

You can read about it here:
http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/fusion/sun_1.html

Suffice to say, Kelvin eventually conceded that Darwin was right, and he was wrong.

But he wasn't happy about it.

 

[Guest]

The story blue is referring to, I think, was the argument between Kelvin and Darwin on the age of the earth.

You can read about it here:
http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/fusion/sun_1.html

Suffice to say, Kelvin eventually conceded that Darwin was right, and he was wrong.

But he wasn't happy about it.

:o :o :o This is a total lie,so do your research folks!!!

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. It's true. Kelvin's estimate was accurate to the best of his knowledge, but he had no idea that the source of the Sun's heat was fusion, a process unknown at the time.

Kelvin's estimate BTW was a few tens of millions of years old, which gives little comfort to YE creationists, anyway.

Not too many creationists use this one anymore.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The story blue is referring to, I think, was the argument between Kelvin and Darwin on the age of the earth.

You can read about it here:
http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/fusion/sun_1.html

Suffice to say, Kelvin eventually conceded that Darwin was right, and he was wrong.

But he wasn't happy about it.

:o :o :o This is a total lie,so do your research folks!!!

Are you saying the nobel committee is lying? Why? Can you SHOW that they have lied? Do you have an ARGUMENT TO PRESENT?
Barbarian has DONE his homework, it is obvious that you have NOT.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's the account of Rutherford, a world-class physicist in his own right:

"I came into the room, which was half dark, and presently spotted
Lord Kelvin in the audience and realized that I was in for trouble at the
last part of my speech dealing with the age of the earth, where my views
conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came
to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye and cock a
balefule glance at me! Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said Lord
Kelvin had limited the age of the earth, *provided no new source (of
energy) was discovered.* That prophetic utterance refers to what we are now considering tonight, radium! Behold! the old boy beamed upon me."

 

[Guest]

:B-fly: Your lies and rubbish cannot get in anyones way of looking up all the information they need. Your interpretation of what is true or false has proven to me how twisted and corrupt your thinking truly is.
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com
http://www.gemsworld.org
actsandfacts
straightistheway.com
http://www.absolutetruth.net/creation/
:Fade-color

* Moderator's Note:
Claiming that someone is lying but not pointing out the specific lie nor explaining why you feel it is false is not a fair way to debate. It is important that Christians hold to only the highest of standards, including the way we debate. Please discontinue proclaiming lies without substantiating those claims in your own words.

BL

 

[cubedbee]

:B-fly: Your lies and rubbish cannot get in anyones way of looking up all the information they need. Your interpretation of what is true or false has proven to me how twisted and corrupt your thinking truly is.
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com
http://www.gemsworld.org
actsandfacts
straightistheway.com
http://www.absolutetruth.net/creation/
:Fade-color

You keep linking to the same links, none of which are pertinent to the topic at hand. Quit calling people liars without showing where they have lied. Either tell us how Barbarians account of the Rutherford-Kelvin meeting is false, or stop your unfounded accusations.

 

[Guest]

:B-fly: Your lies and rubbish cannot get in anyones way of looking up all the information they need. Your interpretation of what is true or false has proven to me how twisted and corrupt your thinking truly is.
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com
http://www.gemsworld.org
actsandfacts
straightistheway.com
http://www.absolutetruth.net/creation/
:Fade-color

You keep linking to the same links, none of which are pertinent to the topic at hand. Quit calling people liars without showing where they have lied. Either tell us how Barbarians account of the Rutherford-Kelvin meeting is false, or stop your unfounded accusations.

:B-fly: who is calling who a liar?
Even when I show you they lied,I still try not to call people liars,it sounds so rude and tacky. I really try not to use that word whenever possible. Misled is a better word.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

So are you going to show what the lie was?

BL

 

[cubedbee]

:B-fly: Your lies and rubbish cannot get in anyones way of looking up all the information they need. Your interpretation of what is true or false has proven to me how twisted and corrupt your thinking truly is.
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com
http://www.gemsworld.org
actsandfacts
straightistheway.com
http://www.absolutetruth.net/creation/
:Fade-color

You keep linking to the same links, none of which are pertinent to the topic at hand. Quit calling people liars without showing where they have lied. Either tell us how Barbarians account of the Rutherford-Kelvin meeting is false, or stop your unfounded accusations.

:B-fly: who is calling who a liar?
Even when I show you they lied,I still try not to call people liars,it sounds so rude and tacky. I really try not to use that word whenever possible. Misled is a better word.

Fine. You did not call anyone a liar. You just said that they lied. It's a narrow, but I suppose valid, distintinction. I still would like to see you offer any support that the account of Lord Kelvin that Barbarian provided contains any falsehood.

 

[ThinkerMan]

I propose a new poll at this point.

1. Blueeyeliner will provide a cogent argument refuting Barbarian's point with appropriate links, sources, and logic.
2. Blueeyeliner will continue to post nonsensical rebuttals with irrelevant links.
3. Blueeyeliner will not respond at all.