Re: Ping Suzanne


"Gregory A Greenman" <see@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.23944886419b59649896d5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:17:08 -0600, 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.

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.


Suzanne, again, could you break your text up in to paragraphs,
please? It really would make it easier to read.

OK

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.


Lots of mountains are shorter now than in the past. The problem is,
except for those mountains that are volcanic, none has grown by a
significant amount in the last few thousand years.

That many mountains are shorter now than in the past is
what the upturned strata indicates, because it is taller
on the mountain slope than the material that is beneath
it. It is not my idea that this indicates that at one time
the mountain was taller, it is what geologists write in
their information.

This is their idea, not mine. I also did not indicate that
the mountains went back to their original heights.
Mt. Ararat has a lot of this material on it. Some of what
it has is due to earthquakes, too, such as the famous
Ahora Gorge.

The Bible only indicates that the ark landed on the
mountains (plural) of Ararat. However, the people
that live there traditionally have elected to call a certain
mountain Ararat as the specific one they say their
ancestors passed down as being the one with the ark. And
that also is where the "Anomaly" is located, which is
believed to be Noah's Ark.

So some could have
collapsed, or lowered as it describes in the Bible.


First, the bible doesn't even make that claim. Second, if they had
been lowered, they could not have regrown to their current heights
in just a few thousand years.

Yes it indicates this in several places.
Psalm 97:5 indicates a time in the past when the
mountains melted before the Lord.
Job 38:30 indicates the waters are "hid as with a stone"
and some believe this refers to creation and others that it
refers to the flood.
Revelation 16:20 indicates that at a future time, the isles
will disappear and the mountains not be found. There are
other places also.

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,

Glaciers are not "ice mountains". Further, they don't have anything
to do with this discussion.

The glaciers in Antarctica form ice that appears as
mountains. The ice is so thick that it is referred to
as mountains of ice, much as it is in this documentary
from Nova on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vinson/
This is the kind of ice cap that I am referring to.


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.

If they all melt, the ocean rises, but not by nearly enough to
cause a worldwide flood.

Please do not misquote me. I did not say that the water
for a global flood would come from the ice caps, as in
by themselves. The Bible indicates clearly that the water
from the flood came from the "fountains of the deep"
being broken up, and also fromk the "windows of heaven,"
which does not refer to just rain. However, the melting of
the ice cap would certainly contribute. The verse in
Job mentioned above continues with the words "and the
face of the deep is frozen" (after the water being hid as
with a stone). The melting of the ice cap during the flood
would make a contribution to the flood.

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. This planet was never completely covered by water.

The Bible certainly indicates that it was covered
completely by water even to the highest mountain
during the flood of Noah. That was for about a
large portion of a year. I think you would have a
hard time proving that all the land was not covered
with water.

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


No it doesn't. If the bible did say that, that would be yet another
thing the bible got wrong.

Genesis 1:1-2:
1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit
of God moved upon the face of the waters."
And....

Genesis 1:9-10:
9. "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be
gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land
appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering
together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it
was good."

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,

This makes no sense. Why do we have to examine all mountains? Isn't
Mt Everest enough by itself? And why do we need evidence that it
was taller in the past? Wouldn't it need to be shorter for the
flood?

For the record, Mt Everest is currently getting taller.

If the shorter mountains collapsed, they would fill up
the space that seas occupy and that would contribute
greatly to the height of a global flood. Think about it.
If you filled up a bathtub half way, and then put a lot
of rocks in the tub, the level of the water in the tub
would become higher because of the volume of the
rocks in the water.

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. 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. 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.

Scientists already study all these things. Their findings show that
your beliefs are wrong.

Would it surprise you to know that when I was a child,
science did not know anything at all about plate tectonics,
and they said that the shape of the continents looking like
puzzle pieces that would fit together, is just a coincidence?
The Bible is not wrong. Science just hasn't caught up with
it yet.

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.


Try to read for comprehension. John was saying that by your
apologetics, your god is the one that is trying to cover up what
really happened.

I understand what he said, but I don't agree with him
that God is trying to hoodwink anyone or cover up
what really happened. You are very nice to speak for
him, though.

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. 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. 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. 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 this is relevant. There is not enough water to cover Mt
Everest. And the bible claims the flood did that. The bible is
wrong, as it is in many other places.

Water drained off. Some of it is "hid as with a stone."Did you
ever hear of Wadsleyite I. and II.? Have you heard the Bible
story of the water that came from out of a rock? Many of the
scientists do believe what the Bible says and pay attention to
these kinds of things.

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. 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."

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.


It is when you are trusting stories that contradict known evidence.
People who do that are people who fly planes into buildings while
praising god.

Putting one's trust in the Lord does not equate with the
actions of the ones you describe.

Are you
gullible for believing that someone loves you? Or are you
trusting?


Probly just someone observing the evidence.

You have what you believe is evidence and others do
not believe it as being evidence.


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.


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.


If I'm trying to fix a car's engine, I'm not going to look in the
section that talks about tires to see if there's anything there I
need to know. If I had to do that, that would mean the manual was
poorly written. So, if I want to understand the flood, why should I
have to go to Revelation or Habawhatever?

If I want to understand something such as the flood of Noah,
I would read all the passages in the Bible that speak of it. Not
just Genesis alone. Noah is mentioned in the New Testament,
too.

The "flood" is mentioned 11 times in Genesis, and then 25 times
in the rest of the Bible. Noah is mentioned many times other than
in Genesis, and in the New Testament, his name is spelled Noe,
so it is there in that spelling as well.

The New Testament records that Jesus verifies that the flood
really did happen.

Suzanne


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ping Suzanne
    ... "upturned strata" that indicate the mountains were at ... refers to the flood. ... the seas up. ... The Bible indicates clearly that the water ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Noahs flood and Mt. Everest height
    ... All they have to claim is that God Did It. ... No heat, no water erosion, no nothing. ... mention of mountains rising. ...  Thus they want scientific verification of their belief ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... mountains may have been lower before the flood, ... and continents were lowered and the sea floor raised during the flood, ... and then the mountains raised and the seafloors lowered after the flood. ... Receding water would have dragged the biomass back away from ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... Because moving to higher ground provides little advantage. ... But those hills would have been quickly covered by Noah's flood, ... Trying to move to tops of mountains doesn't help as mountain slopes are steeper, thus the velocity of water coming off the sides will be higher and the sheet of water will wash everything to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Disproved once and for all
    ... God made it and made it disappear. ... It would have killed everything in the water. ... Didn't the refraction of light work the same before the Flood? ... If you claim, as some creationists do, that there were fewer ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast