Re: Ping Suzanne

Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4umVk.4778$8_3.2428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"spintronic" <spintronic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e04f1424-7b51-493f-9bb5-7b037309a1d1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 21 Aug, 21:43, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:56:29 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
<spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On 20 Aug, 18:26, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:53:10 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
So, the question still is: Do you believe that at sometime in the past
there was a flood that covered the entire planet's surface to a depth
of about 8840 meters above current sea level?
No.
Iv'e seen estimates from 67 - 200 metres above sea level.
If it wasn't so stupid it would be laughable.

Go on, justify your stupid ideas.

--
Bob.
My ideas?

Really?

Oh o.k.

This is a strange thread. It seems to be speaking about me,
and showing things that I am supposed to have said, that
do not reflect my own answers.
The question posed above does not reflect my answer at all.
In the first place, no one knows how tall "the tallest moutain"
on earth was in Noah's day.
Well of course we do. We know that mountains don't change size very fast, and that Mt. Everest (or Chomolungma if you prefer) isn't much different now from its height 5000 years ago.

As I've explained, we do have mountains that do show
"upturned strata" that indicate the mountains were at
one time taller than at present.

I don't recall you having "explained" this, but upturned strata indicate no such thing.

So some could have
collapsed, or lowered as it describes in the Bible. Now,
though you have a good argument based on things as
they are now, do consider that there are some "ice mountains,"
in other words glaciers, that scientists are very concerned
about melting. Surely you have heard of this? It would not
take too many of them to melt in order to drive the level of
the seas up.

How is this relevant? Glaciers are not mountains. That has nothing to do with changing the heights of mountains.

Geologists also tell about phases of the earth
when it was a water planet and the land was beneath the
seas.

No they don't. There are times when sea level has been higher than it is now, and many parts of the earth have been lower than they are now, which means much of what is now land has from time to time bee under water. But never all of it at once.

That's also what the Bible says in the Creation account.

No it isn't.

Your argument, though it sounds good based on what we
have visible today, has some flaws. You would have to
go back in time, find all the mountains on the earth and see
if any of them bore evidence of having at one time being
taller mountains, and you would also have to find any of
them that blew up because of the cataclysmic events that
a world wide flood would pose, and then measure how
much the mass of them would drive up the level of the
sea.

You would find that there had never been a worldwide flood and that mountains change height significantly over the course of millions of years, not days.

As well, you would also have to find all the uplift
lands, such as the middle of Texas which got it's height
after having been covered by a sea. Llano, Texas is the
middle of the uplift and the uplift is actually named the
Llano Uplift. You probably would have to also compile
all information about the subducting continents that we
don't have access to as well.

Continents don't subduct.

So you do not know the level
of the seas, the mass of the land and a lot of facts which
would influence your dismissal of the biblical facts that
are given in the Bible. Besides the subduction of many
of the continents under others, such as takes place in
the north of the USA by the Pacific, where the Pacific
plate is subducting underneath the N.A. Plate, and you
also would have to consider the fact that the tectonic
plates are expanding away from each other.

Actually, the Pacific Plate is not now subducting under the North American Plate. It was until (if I remember) about 15 million years ago. The plate that's currently subducting is the Juan de Fuca Plate. None of this has anything to do with your bizarre claim about mountains flattening by thousands of feet within a few days, then rising again by thousands of feet in a few more days.

Next, there is a Bible verse that
indicates that the mountains became more flattened at the
Lord's command. So people trying to disprove the flood run
into a snag by trying to get the flood to cover the tallest of
the mountains, as the Bible says. When the Bible says that
the tallest mountains were covered with the flood waters, you
have to put that together with the other verses that says that the
mountains lowered themselves at the Lord's command.
So essentially, you want to cover up one miracle with another. I agree that if you pile up enough miracles, anything can be true, and it can be made to look as if anything else actually happened. It's only if we place limits on the possible, or demand that effects have some relation to causes, that science can construe the past.

You are saying that I am trying to "cover up" things. That is
not the truth. I have not lied to you about anything.

You are overly sensitive. I haven't accused you of lying. If you like, substitute "patch" for "cover up".

Although
I do believe God can make miracles, I'm only speaking so far
about a lot of facts you are not acknowledging that would go
into the solving of the problem that you are posing, that you
are not aware exist, apparently.

Your arrogance is overwhelming here. You have learned a few geological buzzwords, some of them wrongly, and you think you can explain the flood without miracles.

You mention the height of the
mountains, but you don't acknowledge many other things that
also would figure into that, as is evidenced by the things that
I've just mentioned in this post alone. You mention a mountain
that you say (and what geologists tell you) was never any
different since the flood. But you do not mention all the other
mountains on earth, or acknowledge that some have plunged
into the sea even in late times of the history of the earth, such
as Krakatoa, and Santorini, etc.

Please. Let's distinguish between mountains and active volcanoes. We should also distinguish between violent explosions and plunging into the sea.

You don't mention or even
acknowledge the lands that are under the sea, such as the ruins
off the coast of Japan, the land under the Indian Ocean, the land
off the coast of France and England that has submerged forests,
and also forests under the sea off the coast of Washington State
in the USA, and many other places in the world.

Some of these (like the land under the Indian Ocean) are fantasy. Others have known explanations having nothing to do with a worldwide flood.

You know, I
am pointing out to you that what you have said is a bit more
complicated than just the height of the tallest current mountain.

None of what you have said is anything more than grasping at straws you dont' really understand.

Here are some of the verses that show that the mountains were
lowered: Habakkuk 3:6: "He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and
made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the
age-old hills collapsed. His ways are eternal." Observe also these: Habakkuk 3:8-10: 8. "Were you angry with the rivers, O Lord? Was your
wrath against the streams? Did you rage against the sea when you rode
with your horses and your victorious chariots? 9. You uncovered your
bow, you called for many arrows. Selah You split the earth with
rivers; 10. the mountains saw you and writhed. Torrents of water
swept by; the deep roared and lifted it's waves on high"
The Lord
protected his plan he had from the beginning of the foundations of
the earth, which was to bring salvation to mankind via his annointed
one,
That seems odd, unless the Fall was part of his plan from the very beginning. Was it? If so it seems very inefficient of him. Why plan for our fall and salvation, when he could just have left out the fall to begin with?

I don't believe that God caused man to fall, but that he planned
around it since he is omniscient and knows the future.

Ah, a Rube Goldberg god. So his initial plan incorporated everything that happened, including the fall. He could have created a world in which the fall never happened, which would have been a lot simpler. But perhaps he just likes drama.

But the
Bible tells that Jesus is the lamb that was slain from the foundations
of the earth, which indicates to me he foresaw all that would happen,
and with that advantage of his foreknowledge could plan around
any obstacle Satan would try to bowl his will over with. As to your
question "why plan for our fall and salvation," I don't know the
answer to that, but I trust him. I don't think the Lord minds at all
if we ask him questions like that, though. He respected Abraham's
requests as to whether or not God would spare the inhabitants of
Sodom and Gomorrah and patiently answered each question he
posed. He knows that we think like human beings and not as he
thinks as God. You say above, "Was it?...if so it seems very
inefficient of him." I think this reflects that you are reasoning as
a man, and not as he would reason things out. Isaiah reasons in
his book that a man may turn back to the Lord and God will
pardon him, and Isaiah answers what you are asking it perhaps...
Isaiah 55:8-9:
8. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways
My ways," says the Lord.
9. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways
higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."

Yes, of course. When god makes no sense, the explanation is that you just don't understand. I don't know why you bother with any other explanation. It works equally well for the flood.

which is the Messiah which he promised Adam and Eve would be
"the seed" born of a woman that would bruise the head of Satan (Gen.
3:15) which is represented by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. That
God had this one bruise the head of the serpent means that he broke
the power of Satan as it came against man. The rainbow was revealed
that had not been seen before.
Almost as if the rainbow were not some simple physical phenomenon of water droplets and sunlight, but a magical thing, perhaps with a pot of gold at the end. What would prevent rainbows from being seen before? You are enormously gullible where your religion is concerned.

The Bible indicates that there was a raqiya in place, which
is the firmament above which is water that is above the
atmosphere. The Creation account indicates that it had not
yet rained upon the earth and that the Garden of Eden was
watered by a mist that I suppose arose from the earth or as
a greenhouse kind of effect. My guess is that the intact layer
of whatever the raqiya was, plus the water above it, would
diffuse light in such a way as to not allow sunlight to bring
a prismatic effect on a droplet of water in the atmosphere
below the firmament where humans live.
Trusting is not the same thing as being gullible. Are you
gullible for believing that someone loves you? Or are you
trusting?

Depends on whether that person loves me, doesn't it? You're gullible, because you will believe anything you have to, whether it makes sense or not. There was no raqiya. There was rain. Animals were not all vegetarian before the flood. There was no flood.

The flood of Noah preserved the coming
of the Messiah and also preserved life on earth as God had originally
intended for it to exist.
I always wonder how God's intentions can possible be thwarted if he's so smart. And we seem to have wandered rather far afield from the flood covering the high mountains.

His secret will is not thwarted.

And yet the bible itself says that god regretted having created humans and proposed to destroy them all, along with all life on earth.

Habakkuk 3:13-15: 13. "You came out to
deliver your people, to save your anointed one. You crushed the
leader of the land of wickedness, you stripped him from head to foot.
Selah 14. With his own spear you pierced his head when his warriors
stormed out to scatter us, gloating as though about to devour the
wretched who were hiding. 15. You trampled the sea with your horses,
churning the great waters."
This gives the example of how pulling something out of the Bible and trying to defeat it, backfires.
Or how pulling something out of the bible to defend one's silly claims can backfire.

What you are saying does not make sense in comparison with
what I had said. A person who is troubleshooting a car engine's
problem will not take just one sentence about how to fix it, out
of a car manual without taking into account all the words about
the same problem. Surely you would agree that someone should
consider the whole of some information, rather than only a
small portion of it.

That would be nice if the bible were in fact an organic whole. But it isn't. It's a mass of contradictory stories with obscure meanings. You have to jump through ridiculous hoops to harmonize the whole thing. Auto mechanics manuals, in contrast, are clear and uncontradictory. If you want to fix the brake shoes, you look in the part about fixing brakes. You don't have to look up the transmission.

The Bible works as a brain. Facts
that are lodged in it, are not only filed but are cross-filed, and
have many avenues of entry. It's all meant to work together, much as
your own brain (hopefully) is arranged in a network of connections,
much also as your computers are programmed, and the information
contained within is organized. To the skeptical person who says "the
Bible is so intrictate that creationists can read anything into it
that they want to read into it, and thereby claim that they can prove
anything they want you to believe," well, no, a person can't do that.
Oh, well, I'm glad to have that assurance, anyway. Takes a load off, that does.

The Bible has things filed in it in such a way that there are checks
and balances against the manipulation of God's word. For example, if
someone comes along and says "the serpent in the Garden of Eden is
just a serpent, and is not satan,"...there is a scripture answering
that, if one will take the entire Bible and put it together.
Or perhaps the writers of some books were aware of the contents of some other books, though not vice versa, and had by that later point attached certain significance to the stories not derivable from the original texts. The idea that the bible is an organic whole is absurd based on even a brief examination.

I believe that it is a Holy Bible, not a Holey Bible.

You believe a lot of things in the face of the evidence. Not my problem.

For
example this verse in Revelation about the serpent and who he really
is..... Revelation 20:2: "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old
serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand
years" This verse shows that the serpent, the dragon, the Devil and Satan are one in the same. Suzanne
No it doesn't. It shows that Satan is being referred to as a serpent/dragon. It makes no connection between Satan and the Genesis snake.

It does not say "a" serpent, it says "that old serpent," which is
the Devil and Satan. You can also strain at a gnat and swallow
a camel if you want to. Most of us see a connection in the
verse that this is referring to the serpent of the Garden of Eden,
which this goes on to say is the one by whom the whole world
went astray.

Then why isn't he crawling on his belly?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ping Suzanne
    ... Iv'e seen estimates from 67 - 200 metres above sea level. ... We know that mountains don't change size ... We're talking about the flood. ... "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ping Suzanne
    ... Iv'e seen estimates from 67 - 200 metres above sea level. ... on earth was in Noah's day. ... We know that mountains don't change size very ... cause a worldwide flood. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ping Suzanne
    ... Iv'e seen estimates from 67 - 200 metres above sea level. ... we do have mountains that do show ... Geologists also tell about phases of the earth ... a world wide flood would pose, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ping Suzanne
    ... Iv'e seen estimates from 67 - 200 metres above sea level. ... We know that mountains don't change size ... Currently the Himalaya Range contain the highest mountains on Earth. ... There was no flood. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Flood Waters;from where?
    ... > Where did all the water come from to cover the whole earth? ... is a solid metal "firmament" able to keep the water above from falling to ... According to the PHYSICAL evidence no such flood occurred. ... Sea level would rise a good deal, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading