Can any creationist tell me ...

[blü 2]

The Bible never states that....actually, it says the Earth is round, like a sphere -- Isaiah 40:22

No, it says the earth is a circle. Elsewhere it says the earth is like a table. Circle and table were both flat-earth models back then.

I posted a selection of bible quotes showing the old view of cosmology >here<. Their words, not mine.

By the way, they represent the best science of their day. Why would you expect them to hold any other view?

(From what source, do you think, the light on Day 1 is coming from? A Bic lighter?)

Well, according to the author of Genesis, the EM spectrum didn't exist until after the earth existed. And he doesn't know where the lettherebe light came from, any more than I do.

Were you there?

No.

Neither was Yahweh. He doesn't exist until about 1500 BCE when he first crops up as a member of the Canaanite pantheon.

The Flood in the Bible covered the Earth only for a short period.

Lines, lines!

The flood downpour continued for 40 days, (Genesis 7:17), and "all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered" (7:19) and "the water prevailed over the mountains, covering them 15 cubits (say 25 feet) deep" (7:20).

So there you have a clear statement that at some stage after civilization developed the technique of building large watertight wooden vessels, the tip of Mount Everest was 25 feet or so under water. If you do a quick sum, you'll find that requires some 1.113 billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on earth. Where is it now, I wonder ... in the story, we can infer it flowed away over the edges of the flat earth.

And the ark was at sea for about a year, if I recall aright.

The flood drowned every breathing creature that wasn't on the ark, it says (7:22). That means that every land species we see today comes from the one, or max seven, breeding pairs on the ark. As a result, every descendant of those critters (including us) will show a genetic bottleneck at that point, and all the bottlenecks will date to the same date. Strange that we find nothing of the kind, isn't it. It's exactly what you'd expect if there were no flood!

Still, much has been discovered geologically (and in other sciences) that gives credence to a global Flood.

That's simply untrue.

If there had been such a flood, then all over all continents and islands, all over the sea floor, there'd be a single geological flood layer, of uniform recent date. And as you know, there's nothing even vaguely resembling that.

Check it out.

 

[blü 2]

Friend Ellis is as relevant as you or I. He does have a PhD in Chemistry and wrote from his experiences so you may divine from that what you will.

How come all but none of his colleagues agree with him?

2) Evolution is observed in nature in micro scale transmutations across specie boundaries has never been observed or engineered. Scientist have not forced a cyanobacteria to evolve into anthrax even though reproduction is quite rapid.

Why do you think cyanobacteria should evolve into anthrax? The theory of evolution says nothing of the kind. (What it says is that the changes of evolutionary direction involved occurred millions, or billions, of years ago.)

Human evolution takes place on a time scale of 1 million -2 million years ( a very short period of time for transitioning from the great Apes to Homo sapiens)

Genus Homo evolved to be distinct from the other great apes around 2 million years ago. It's not perfectly clear when H sap became a distinct strand of genus Homo, but 200,000 years seems like a maximum, and some argue for half that.

The book does not support Creationism at least not the literal interpretation thereof but neither does it support the abiogenesis evolutionary models.

So does the book say that life arose through the natural operations of physics?

Or does it say life arose by magic?

And if it does, does it explain to us how magic is done and why it works? After all, if it doesn't, then the magic hypothesis explains nothing at all, does it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, it says the earth is a circle. Elsewhere it says the earth is like a table. Circle and table were both flat-earth models back then.

"Circle" is translated here from the Hebrew word "chug", which can mean ball or sphere
Strong's Hebrew: 1754. דּוּר (dur) -- a circle, ball

I'll have to address the other issues later.

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

.....the tip of Mount Everest was 25 feet or so under water.

I wanted to deal with this issue you raised, then I'm gone.

Since we're talking about an event the Bible describes, it would be best to find out if the Bible has anything else to say about it, yes? It does.

Psalms 104:5-8 is describing the Flood. It says "the mountains rose, the valleys sank." IOW, the Earth was less mountainous and smoother, like a cue ball. So, no Mt.Everest.
Considering that a lot of the water mentioned gushes up from "vast watery springs" that were "opened up", it stands to reason that the land would descend downward, with all that extra weight on it, the underground water now on top, and pushing the land downward.
It's been discovered that mountains of today have "roots", so to speak -- reference 'Putnam's Geology' -- so this geologic feature would allow for these ranges we have now to remain in place, while the surrounding land masses would gradually sink, filling in the vacuum left by the escaping underground springs of water.

If the Earth today were smoothed out, the existing water would cover the planet to a depth of 1.7 miles!

Apparently, before the Flood, Mt. Everest was under water. The giant clams discovered between the elevations of 26,000 to 29,000 ft, are found embedded in many places! And, most all died with their shells closed, i.e., quickly, as in a catastrophe, like the Flood. Vast clam fields have been discovered all over the Earth, on tops of mountains, and died the same way!

//////////////////

EDIT: I doubt there was a 'vacuum' formed underground by the escaping water, I shouldn't have said that. Although Jehovah God could make anything happen (before, during, or after the event), since He was ultimately the One causing it. No doubt, though, He would let physics do the work for Him, only exerting control when needed.

To have the "vast underground springs" shoot out and inundate the Earth, it could very well have been that certain parts of the Earth -- huge sections that were above those watery springs, and had no "roots" underneath -- simply collapsed due to gravity and 'caved-in' -- "the valleys fell" -- thereby literally shooting the water out.

 

[blü 2]

Psalms 104:5-8 is describing the Flood. It says "the mountains rose, the valleys sank." IOW, the Earth was less mountainous and smoother, like a cue ball. So, no Mt.Everest.

You're confusing the story in the bible with the facts of reality. (And the flood isn't even the bible's own story, but borrowed from Mesopotamian tales of Bilgames / Gilgamesh, where the Noah character is called >Ziusudra< in the original Sumerian tales from the third millennium BCE, and Uta-Napishti by the Babylonians, who learnt the story via their neighbors the Akkadians. Get The Epic of Gilgamesh in the Penguin Classics series and read Andrew George's fine translation and exegesis.)

The real mountains didn't rise and the real valleys sink except in geological time and according to the action of erosion and tectonic uplift. The ancients, including the authors of the bible, had no knowledge of such processes. They thought the earth was flat. The author of Psalm 104 was not referring to such processes.

Considering that a lot of the water mentioned gushes up from "vast watery springs" that were "opened up", it stands to reason that the land would descend downward

Only in the story. Reality reveals no record of such things, nor of the bible's flat earth nor of a geocentric universe.

If the Earth today were smoothed out, the existing water would cover the planet to a depth of 1.7 miles!

And if all the lawyers in New York were stacked one on the other, they'd reach to the moon and back three times. So what?

Apparently, before the Flood, Mt. Everest was under water.

You're still in the campfire tale. There was no flood in reality. The evidence is clear and unambiguous.

The giant clams discovered between the elevations of 26,000 to 29,000 ft, are found embedded in many places!

You really really really don't understand geology, do you.

The shells are there because hundreds of millions of years ago they were sea animals who died, whence the shells accumulated on the sea floor. When tectonic uplift raised the sea floor, the shells went too. This is old news.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You're confusing the story in the bible with the facts of reality. (And the flood isn't even the bible's own story, but borrowed from Mesopotamian tales of Bilgames / Gilgamesh, where the Noah character is called >Ziusudra< in the original Sumerian tales from the third millennium BCE, and Uta-Napishti by the Babylonians, who learnt the story via their neighbors the Akkadians. Get The Epic of Gilgamesh in the Penguin Classics series and read Andrew George's fine translation and exegesis.)

The real mountains didn't rise and the real valleys sink except in geological time and according to the action of erosion and tectonic uplift. The ancients, including the authors of the bible, had no knowledge of such processes. They thought the earth was flat. The author of Psalm 104 was not referring to such processes.

Only in the story. Reality reveals no record of such things, nor of the bible's flat earth nor of a geocentric universe.

And if all the lawyers in New York were stacked one on the other, they'd reach to the moon and back three times. So what?

You're still in the campfire tale. There was no flood in reality. The evidence is clear and unambiguous.

You really really really don't understand geology, do you.

The shells are there because hundreds of millions of years ago they were sea animals who died, whence the shells accumulated on the sea floor. When tectonic uplift raised the sea floor, the shells went too. This is old news.

Why are you ignoring the other aspects of my quote about the clam evidence, like the fact that they died quickly, with their shells closed? And the fact that there are numerous giant clam beds globally, which died in a cataclysm?

With the extreme weather on Mt. Everest, these clams would exhibit much more erosion than they do, over 100 million years!
So I "don't understand "?

You're attempt to discredit the Bible, although a popular endeavor these days, just highlights to me how much you (and others) don't understand the Bible writers' meanings....like thinking "firmament" meant, in their minds, a solid dome. "Rakia" actually means "expanse."

There are so many more misunderstood examples! Including the Creative Days....when reading all the Scriptures that have a bearing on the subject -- like Hebrews 4, which discusses the 7th day, God's Rest Day -- it's easy to decipher that those days weren't literally 24-hr days. So YEC's are wrong, too.

The Bible should be studied thoroughly, it's context 'taken apart and reattached,' as it were, before any opinion is ventured regarding its veracity! Even more so today, with all the contempt heaped on it!

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses for over 30 years, I've examined the evidence, and appreciate everything about it and the writers of it.

Even Mahatma Gandhi appreciated its value, saying the counsel found in the Sermon on the Mount could solve the world's problems if it was applied.

But to understand all of it, you have to have an open mind. But I'm afraid I've wasted my time. Oh well, maybe others reading this will appreciate it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I wanted to deal with this issue you raised, then I'm gone.

Since we're talking about an event the Bible describes, it would be best to find out if the Bible has anything else to say about it, yes? It does.

Psalms 104:5-8 is describing the Flood. It says "the mountains rose, the valleys sank." IOW, the Earth was less mountainous and smoother, like a cue ball. So, no Mt.Everest.
Considering that a lot of the water mentioned gushes up from "vast watery springs" that were "opened up", it stands to reason that the land would descend downward, with all that extra weight on it, the underground water now on top, and pushing the land downward.
It's been discovered that mountains of today have "roots", so to speak -- reference 'Putnam's Geology' -- so this geologic feature would allow for these ranges we have now to remain in place, while the surrounding land masses would gradually sink, filling in the vacuum left by the escaping underground springs of water.

If the Earth today were smoothed out, the existing water would cover the planet to a depth of 1.7 miles!

Apparently, before the Flood, Mt. Everest was under water. The giant clams discovered between the elevations of 26,000 to 29,000 ft, are found embedded in many places! And, most all died with their shells closed, i.e., quickly, as in a catastrophe, like the Flood. Vast clam fields have been discovered all over the Earth, on tops of mountains, and died the same way!

also...

Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface

"If [the stored water] wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out," he said.

 

[Jose Fly]

also...

Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface

"If [the stored water] wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out," he said.

Dude, physics.

You can't take water that's at its lowest point and use it to flood the earth. It'll just run right back down to the lowest point, or it'll swap places with other surface water.

You're basically trying to say that you can sit in a bathtub that has 2 inches of water and "flood" yourself by pouring the water over your head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you ignoring the other aspects of my quote about the clam evidence, like the fact that they died quickly, with their shells closed? And the fact that there are numerous giant clam beds globally, which died in a cataclysm?

Where do you find these beds? Do you have any peer reviewed articles that support this claim. Most clam fossils that I am aware of are not tightly sealed as live ones are. They show that they are opened such as this one:

With the extreme weather on Mt. Everest, these clams would exhibit much more erosion than they do, over 100 million years!
So I "don't understand "?

Nope, erosion occurs on exposed rocks. The sedimentary rocks that are not exposed do not erode. Funny how that works. You need to expose them to the elements to weather them.

You're attempt to discredit the Bible, although a popular endeavor these days, just highlights to me how much you (and others) don't understand the Bible writers' meanings....like thinking "firmament" meant, in their minds, a solid dome. "Rakia" actually means "expanse."

The Bible has been reinterpreted by apologists many times to apologize for the obvious errors in it. It does not work to well with people that are willing to dig.

There are so many more misunderstood examples! Including the Creative Days....when reading all the Scriptures that have a bearing on the subject -- like Hebrews 4, which discusses the 7th day, God's Rest Day -- it's easy to decipher that those days weren't literally 24-hr days. So YEC's are wrong, too.

Obviously they are wrong. At least you got that right. You do realize that there never was a global flood too. Or do you?

The Bible should be studied thoroughly, it's context 'taken apart and reattached,' as it were, before any opinion is ventured regarding its veracity! Even more so today, with all the contempt heaped on it!

Too late, been there done that. It has very little veracity.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses for over 30 years, I've examined the evidence, and appreciate everything about it and the writers of it.

Even Mahatma Gandhi appreciated its value, saying the counsel found in the Sermon on the Mount could solve the world's problems if it was applied.

He was merely being polite. The Bible is not totally worthless. I do believe some call that "damning with faint praise".

But to understand all of it, you have to have an open mind. But I'm afraid I've wasted my time. Oh well, maybe others reading this will appreciate it.

Perhaps you should not accuse others of not having an open mind. Very few creationists are willing to discuss the actual evidence. That is why they are creationists since there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

also...

Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface

"If [the stored water] wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out," he said.

Yes, I understand that article. You probably don't.

So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude, physics.

You can't take water that's at its lowest point and use it to flood the earth. It'll just run right back down to the lowest point, or it'll swap places with other surface water.

You're basically trying to say that you can sit in a bathtub that has 2 inches of water and "flood" yourself by pouring the water over your head.

Actually the "water" in that article is in the mantle and is chemically tied up in a particular crystal. And example of a much "wetter" crystal is gypsum. Its chemical formula is CaSO4*2(H2O). There is quite a bit of gypsum in your house. It has a name that is rather ironic for this argument, it is called "dry wall". Dry wall is far from wet. And yet it has quite a bit of water in it. To get all of the water out of the mantle one would have to destroy the crust of the Earth. And then it would never go back into the mantle. That is an example of grasping at straws.

The mantle is huge. It dwarfs the crust in volume. A very low percentage of water in the mantle would easily give us as much water as in the oceans. The crust is a very thin skin on top of the earth and the oceans are even thinner. It is important to keep proper perspective when comparing the mantle and the crust.

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually the "water" in that article is in the mantle and is chemically tied up in a particular crystal. And example of a much "wetter" crystal is gypsum. Its chemical formula is CaSO4*2(H2O). There is quite a bit of gypsum in your house. It has a name that is rather ironic for this argument, it is called "dry wall". Dry wall is far from wet. And yet it has quite a bit of water in it. To get all of the water out of the mantle one would have to destroy the crust of the Earth. And then it would never go back into the mantle. That is an example of grasping at straws.

The mantle is huge. It dwarfs the crust in volume. A very low percentage of water in the mantle would easily give us as much water as in the oceans. The crust is a very thin skin on top of the earth and the oceans are even thinner. It is important to keep proper perspective when comparing the mantle and the crust.

Good info. Thanks!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, I understand that article. You probably don't.

So what?

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'

 

[Subduction Zone]

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'

That was not an insult, it was an observation. If you understood it you would not have posted it. It does not help you. Being thin skinned is the most graceless form of conceding defeat.

Tell me, why did you post that article?

 

[blü 2]

Why are you ignoring the other aspects of my quote about the clam evidence, like the fact that they died quickly, with their shells closed? And the fact that there are numerous giant clam beds globally, which died in a cataclysm?

If they died in a cataclysm, which I haven't checked, then we can say two things with complete confidence: it wasn't in a global flood, and it occurred hundreds of millions, or billions, of years before genus Homo, let alone H sap sap, existed.

You're attempt to discredit the Bible

The idea that the ancients knew modern science is not just untrue but absurd. The bible gives the cosmology of its day. I asked you why you'd expect otherwise but you didn't answer.

don't understand the Bible writers' meanings....like thinking "firmament" meant, in their minds, a solid dome. "Rakia" actually means "expanse."

The word translated as 'firmament' is transliterated by Strong as 'raqiya' and he says it means ─

an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.​

'Firmament' means the arch of the sky, particularly the sphere to which the stars and other heavenly bodies were attached. This was a common perception in antiquity, but for some reason you seem bent on attributing knowledge to the ancients that simply didn't exist in those days.

The Bible should be studied thoroughly

Any ancient document should be considered carefully to answer the usual questions: when, who, why, what. The bible is an ancient document and should be read no differently.

Incidentally, the Tanakh doesn't claim to contain 'God's word' or to be inerrant, and the NT can't make such a claim because when its various books were written, there was as yet no NT.

But to understand all of it, you have to have an open mind.

Of course you do. But that's not a license to run off into fantasies about 'the word of God' blah blah. It's a manifestly human book, and it's manifestly written by humans. You disfigure it and rob it of its value when you start wishing your own views on what it says.

But I'm afraid I've wasted my time.

That depends on whether you were reading my posts with that 'open mind' you mentioned. If your concern isn't for what the document says, but what you want it to say, yes, you're wasting your time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If they died in a cataclysm, which I haven't checked, then we can say two things with complete confidence: it wasn't in a global flood, and it occurred hundreds of millions, or billions, of years before genus Homo, let alone H sap sap, existed.

The idea that the ancients knew modern science is not just untrue but absurd. The bible gives the cosmology of its day. I asked you why you'd expect otherwise but you didn't answer.

The word translated as 'firmament' is transliterated by Strong as 'raqiya' and he says it means ─

an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.​

'Firmament' means the arch of the sky, particularly the sphere to which the stars and other heavenly bodies were attached. This was a common perception in antiquity, but for some reason you seem bent on attributing knowledge to the ancients that simply didn't exist in those days.

Any ancient document should be considered carefully to answer the usual questions: when, who, why, what. The bible is an ancient document and should be read no differently.

Incidentally, the Tanakh doesn't claim to contain 'God's word' or to be inerrant, and the NT can't make such a claim because when its various books were written, there was as yet no NT.

Of course you do. But that's not a license to run off into fantasies about 'the word of God' blah blah. It's a manifestly human book, and it's manifestly written by humans. You disfigure it and rob it of its value when you start wishing your own views on what it says.

That depends on whether you were reading my posts with that 'open mind' you mentioned. If your concern isn't for what the document says, but what you want it to say, yes, you're wasting your time.

Well, I tell you what. You've been one of the nicer evolutionists / atheists I've spoken with. I appreciate that. It seems many are more interested in attacking the character and mental capacity of IDers, than considering the finer points of the evidence.

But you've refrained from that behavior. Thanks.

I've got three different topics I'm formulating for OP's. One is the authenticity of the Bible: it's agreement with accurate science, it's prophecies in the past and for the future, its counsel.....the whole gamut. I'll let you know when I post them.

Take care, cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If they died in a cataclysm, which I haven't checked, then we can say two things with complete confidence: it wasn't in a global flood, and it occurred hundreds of millions, or billions, of years....

Remember, multicellular life with hard shells originated only c. 600 mya. at most. So, billions is out.

Plus, these clam fossils on Everest are exposed to the elements. With the extreme weather Everest has at those elevations, the clams would have experienced more erosion, if they were even a million years old.

The Earth may be 4 bya, but the major phyla of organisms are only 550-600 mya, by current standards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remember, multicellular life with hard shells originated only c. 600 mya. at most. So, billions is out.

Plus, these clam fossils on Everest are exposed to the elements. With the extreme weather Everest has at those elevations, the clams would have experienced more erosion, if they were even a million years old.

The Earth may be 4 bya, but the major phyla of organisms are only 550-600 mya, by current standards.

Yes, hard shells appeared in the Cambrian. So what?

And no, only the surfaces of sedimentary rocks are exposed to the elements. Fossils are quite often found throughout an entire strata. So the fossils that are exposed may weather away, but the rest are protected.

Also the Himalayas were built by both uplift and erosion. Without erosion there would just be a very high plane.

 

[blü 2]

Take care, cousin.

And you.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Oops! I found a snide remark from you that I apparently had overlooked!

I stated: "If the Earth today were smoothed out, the existing water would cover the planet to a depth of 1.7 miles!"

And your reply was sarcastic:

And if all the lawyers in New York were stacked one on the other, they'd reach to the moon and back three times. So what?

I had just finished saying that your behavior was more respectful than some of the others. Now I read this.

I respond with a fact, and you answer back with disrespectful sarcasm, and a "so what."
You know why I mentioned that, I don't think you're that dense, not to get it.

If you disagree with my conclusion, just say so. But don't be a yokel about it.