Re: A few Glaring inconsistencies in the Noah Flood Myth

On Dec 31 2007, 4:05 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 28, 6:04 am, mygooglegroups2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Nov 1, 4:08 pm, Iago <iago2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The following is excerpted from Genesis Chapter 8 with verse notes.

From the NIV bible

"1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock
that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and
the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates
of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from
the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of
the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the
seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the
mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth
month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the
mountains became visible.

6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7
and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the
water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if
the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove
could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all
the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He
reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself
in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove
from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there
in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the
water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and
sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him. "

Alrigth so the water had receded until in the tenth month the tops of
mountains were visible. And 40 days after that Noah sends out a dove
and it can find no place to set down because there is no place for it
to set down ' because there was water over all the face of the earth'.
Seems to be a bit contradictary there. Can see the mountains but can't
land on them ? HUH ?
Ok so there is no land visible and then 7 days later there is a
growing olive tree with leaves upon it ? HUH ? I am reasonably certain
that it takes a lttle more than seven days for an olive tree to spring
up and produce leaves that can be plucked off.

Anyone notice some problem with the flow of time here. On cultivating
olives, olives grow in dry climates. I do not think after some 7 days
the groudn would be dry enough for an olive tree.

So I would like an explanation of this.

Thank you.

I'm not sure if your question was correctly addressed, but from some
of the remarks on the subject I've read here, some aren't interested
in facts, they seem to have a preconceived idea of the subject and no
amount of clarification or evidence will satisfy them. They are just
bent on making hateful remarks towards anybody that sees things
differently than them. Not to mention you seem to have a deep
hostility towards the bible and people of faith in general. I feel
sorry for you and your family and friends that have to be with you on
a daily basis. Possibly a little more education on certain subjects
would help you when you try to comment on things you obviously know
very little about. I won't mention any names as you already know who
you are.

So what do you say to Christians such as Glenn Morton who almost lost
his faith when he found that nothing he had been taught by
"scientific" creationists about the geological record turned out to be
true?

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm



As far as the topic is concerned, many of the comments made about the
possibility of such a flood occurring and the effects of the earth
afterwards shows you have no geological background at all.

I suggest that your geological background is nonexistent judging from
the content of your post.

Geologists
from both sides whether Christian, atheist or indifferent for that
matter express the same views about the great flood.

Yes, they are. There was no global flood, and no geologist for almost
two centuries, whether Christian, atheist or of any other religious
conviction or none has believed that there has been a global flood.
The evidence shows clearly and categorically that no such event has or
could have ocurred.

There is
countless evidence of such an occurrence, they just differ on the
source of the water.

I'm afraid that whoever told you this is either as ill-informed as you
seem to be or lying.

The majority agree the earths terrain was greatly
effected when the release of water from deep within the earth was
released under great pressure.

No geologist agrees with this. There is no evidence whatsever to
support this "theory".

There were earthquakes, plates shifted
rapidly, deep canyons were formed both on land and on the ocean floor
which was considerably deeper by the time all the geological activity
ceased.

In case you haven't noticed, geological activity is still happening.

So it isn't as one person put it, Bible science that states
this, but most of the field of geology agree on this fact.

Nobody in the field of geology agrees on this "fact"! It is pure
fiction.

So it isn't
a myth like one individual stated in this thread, but it is a fact
whether he wants to acknowledge it or not. I'm no expert on the Bible,

I suggest that however lacking your expertise in Biblical scholarship
may be, your expertise in geology is far less.

so I won't be like the few I mentioned earlier, and comment on the
rest of it since I am not qualified to do so. Best wishes, T.
Jackson

You seem to be struggling under some very distorted ideas about
geology.
Would you like me to recommend a book list from which you can educate
yourself?

RF

Well, John harshman and Richard, as I said I was no geologist,
something I was upfront about in the beginning. From the quality of
your response I can tell you are not either. I'm afraid you are the
ones that are grossly misinformed as you put it. I have heard the same
theory as I started even on your main stream media outlets, when they
had discussions on the topic with experts. You can't be anymore anti
religion than those groups, so if they have them on and accepted them
as credible, I would think you would too. If you want to be in denial
and just keep repeating those things over and over to yourself in
hopes it makes those statements more credible, then go ahead, have at
it.

You are no more qualified to say it never happened as I am to say it
might have. I was presenting a theory as expressed by qualified
experts on the news programs I mentioned. Which by the way, the other
side of the argument is just that also, A THEORY, nothing else, so
don't take it so hard. The so called experts are always changing their
minds on what happened in the past on a variety of subjects. Nothing
is written in stone.

There were earthquakes, plates shifted
rapidly, deep canyons were formed both on land and on the ocean floor
which was considerably deeper by the time all the geological activity
ceased.

In case you haven't noticed, geological activity is still happening.

Again a juvenile response. Yes we know they are today, how observant
of you to notice, but not in the intensity or frequency or sheer
magnitude as they did at the proposed time in question. I think you
knew that, you were just trying to be witty. I hope you weren't that
uneducated to assume otherwise.

Most importantly the thing to remember if nothing else, is these are
all THEORIES, on both sides, no one can state anything else unless
they are dishonest or fools. Unless one was there, one cannot hope to
depict things as they actually happened exactly to the letter. One
must be able to debate things and ideas without getting hateful or
mean and making personal attacks on the other side because they don't
believe the same thing. You have to stop sating theories or ideas as
facts, you should always express that it is your opinion not a fact
when you make statements in a discussion of these types. Every one
would benefit in that way. I in no way want to irritate or aggravate
anyone by my views, so if I have I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Just please keep an open mind and don't shut out people with differing
opinions for the pure sake of doing so.

Best wishes, T. Jackson





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A few Glaring inconsistencies in the Noah Flood Myth
    ... The water receded steadily from the earth. ... The waters continued to recede until the tenth ... but most of the field of geology agree on this fact. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A few Glaring inconsistencies in the Noah Flood Myth
    ... The water receded steadily from the earth. ... The waters continued to recede until the tenth ... but most of the field of geology agree on this fact. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Huge reservoir of water found on mars
    ... But I think water on mars might be a little more irrelevant that that. ... Mars is what the Earth will be in less than ... the coherence of it all as clearly explained by the True Geology. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Bad science is still science
    ... I didn't say those dams produce deep canyons, ... to look at the geology of a canyon to realise that. ... them because I think the excess water didn't accumulate behind natural dams. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The science of Noahs Ark: Creation society considers the
    ... being only in the deep dark blue areas; and not very deep in those ... almost walk around the earth. ... with a water vapor canopy as well as water much under the ground. ... the fact that creationists have been unable to provide such an answer ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading