Billions of Dead Things

[Ouroboros]

What if the earths crust did not have the depth of valleys and or the height of mountains as it did after the flood?

Which means that the highest mountains we have would have to have started from still some 1,000 feet hight and go to 29,000 feet in just a few thousand years (until today), which is like 5 feet a year. No mountain has been recorded to grow that fast, and it would have caused huge earthquakes all over the world for the past, all the time. The fastest growing mountains grow a few millimeter per year.

 

[JayJayDee]

Which means that the highest mountains we have would have to have started from still some 1,000 feet hight and go to 29,000 feet in just a few thousand years (until today), which is like 5 feet a year. No mountain has been recorded to grow that fast, and it would have caused huge earthquakes all over the world for the past, all the time. The fastest growing mountains grow a few millimeter per year.

Earthquakes can cause huge upheavals in earths crust. Deep valleys are created when this happens. Some parts of the ocean are kilometres deep. No one said the mountains had to grow like a plant.

 

[Ouroboros]

Earthquakes can cause huge upheavals in earths crust. Deep valleys are created when this happens. Some parts of the ocean are kilometres deep. No one said the mountains had to grow like a plant.

Sure, but my point is that if the mountains were lower, they would have had to be a lot lower, and they would have to have moved up to their current hight in a very short time.

Today, Mt Everest is about 19,000 feet high. It's a fact. It's been measured many times, and you can find this information freely on the web.

The highest water ever was, as far as I understand, is 4-500 feet, when there wasn't any ice age going on.

So let's say that we flatten out the deep parts of the ocean and flatten out the mountains. How high would the mountains have to be. I'm guessing here, since there were mountains that they actually called mountains in that time (since Noah supposedly landed on a "mountain"), they must've been of some significant high to be call mountain and not just a hill top or bump in the road. So let's say 1,000 feet.

That means that, let's say, if Mt Everest was 1,000 feet 5,000 years ago, but is 19,000 feet today. We don't know when Everest stopped growing, but let's just say it has been growing taller evenly all these years until now. That means it had to grow 18,000 feet (19,000-1,000, simple math) in a period of 5,000 years (about). 18,000/5,000 = 3.6 feet per year. That's quite a lot! Now, the speed at which mountains change (grow or shrink), and the motions of the plate tectonics (major cause of mountains to form and "grow"), and nowhere does it move this much. I think plates only move at most some millimeters or about (which is just a fraction of a fee), and the same for mountains. So it's not happening.

 

[JayJayDee]

Sure, but my point is that if the mountains were lower, they would have had to be a lot lower, and they would have to have moved up to their current hight in a very short time.

Today, Mt Everest is about 19,000 feet high. It's a fact. It's been measured many times, and you can find this information freely on the web.

The highest water ever was, as far as I understand, is 4-500 feet, when there wasn't any ice age going on.

So let's say that we flatten out the deep parts of the ocean and flatten out the mountains. How high would the mountains have to be. I'm guessing here, since there were mountains that they actually called mountains in that time (since Noah supposedly landed on a "mountain"), they must've been of some significant high to be call mountain and not just a hill top or bump in the road. So let's say 1,000 feet.

That means that, let's say, if Mt Everest was 1,000 feet 5,000 years ago, but is 19,000 feet today. We don't know when Everest stopped growing, but let's just say it has been growing taller evenly all these years until now. That means it had to grow 18,000 feet (19,000-1,000, simple math) in a period of 5,000 years (about). 18,000/5,000 = 3.6 feet per year. That's quite a lot! Now, the speed at which mountains change (grow or shrink), and the motions of the plate tectonics (major cause of mountains to form and "grow"), and nowhere does it move this much. I think plates only move at most some millimeters or about (which is just a fraction of a fee), and the same for mountains. So it's not happening.

OK, I understand that this is from a purely human calculation based on things science believes by studying earth's structure and landscape after the event.....but Noah and his family were on the ark for over a year. Nothing is said about what God was doing in that time regarding the subsiding of the waters.

Little is said about where the water went except that Noah sent birds out to see if there was a place for them

There is something the apostle John wrote about Jesus that sticks in my mind.....

"There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written." (John 21:25)

What science relies on is the detail.....which is what is missing from the scriptures. If God recorded every detail of what he did and how he did it, not only would man not have understood it, the written word of God would need several trucks to carry it around! We are to use it in our preaching and teaching work, so it had to be concise....just the bare bones in fact.

I have faith in the being that I believe is the first cause of everything. No one powerful enough to create the universe would find the things he caused to be written in scripture, to be the least bit difficult.

You rule God out....I rule him in. I guess that is the difference.

 

[Ouroboros]

You rule God out....I rule him in. I guess that is the difference.

I don't rule out God.

I rule in God.

I rule in a God that fits the universe, reality, nature, world, science, what we know, can test, see, smell, and measure.

I only rule out a God that doesn't fit.

If God created this universe, then we can see how God created the universe by measuring the universe using science. So when science discovers that the universe works in a particular way, then we have to modify our view of what God is, not the other way around. We don't dictate what God did or how God did it just because an ancient author wrote it in a book. Nature is the true gospel of God. Not the words of ancient men.

 

[JayJayDee]

I don't rule out God.

I rule in God.

I rule in a God that fits the universe, reality, nature, world, science, what we know, can test, see, smell, and measure.

I only rule out a God that doesn't fit.

You mean "doesn't fit" with what man presently knows. Do you believe that man knows all there is to know about God's abilities?

If God created this universe, then we can see how God created the universe by measuring the universe using science. So when science discovers that the universe works in a particular way, then we have to modify our view of what God is, not the other way around. We don't dictate what God did or how God did it just because an ancient author wrote it in a book. Nature is the true gospel of God. Not the words of ancient men.

But if what the ancient men wrote was dictated by God, then the argument is rather circular.

Don't get me wrong....science has its rightful place, but I will take the word of God over the words of limited human understanding any day. The "wise and intellectual" ones don't have a monopoly on knowledge. As Jesus said...."I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved." (Luke 10:21)

The apostle Paul also wrote..."Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” (1 Cor 3:18, 19)

So whilst I have great respect for true science, the theoretical musings of the wise and intellectual may not be as accurate as their present knowledge allows them to believe.

I understand that the more man knows about the workings of things even on this earth....the more he realizes how much more there is to know.

 

[Ouroboros]

You mean "doesn't fit" with what man presently knows. Do you believe that man knows all there is to know about God's abilities?

You mean, when nature is the witness how God created the world, it is lying because we're supposed to believe an ancient prophet rather than the direct testimony of nature?

The thing is, if nature is not what it tells us, then God intentionally made it deceive us. That's the God you want to believe in? I don't think so.

But if what the ancient men wrote was dictated by God, then the argument is rather circular.

So nature doesn't not testify of how and what God did? Nature is lying, but ancient prophets you never met or even know much about are telling the truth?

Don't get me wrong....science has its rightful place, but I will take the word of God over the words of limited human understanding any day. The "wise and intellectual" ones don't have a monopoly on knowledge. As Jesus said...."I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved." (Luke 10:21)

And? So... Jesus hid things from the intellectuals, that means he was deceiving them. He was misleading them intentionally. Then you're suggesting that God tells lies.

The apostle Paul also wrote..."Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” (1 Cor 3:18, 19)

Did you ever meet Paul? Talk to him? Do you know what his favorite food was? Hair color? You don't know much about the real person, but science can really test nature as it is, right here, right now. Which testimony is first hand, and which one is second hand?

So whilst I have great respect for true science, the theoretical musings of the wise and intellectual may not be as accurate as their present knowledge allows them to believe.

They might not be... but also... they might be! Your choice is to override direct science about nature, the first hand witness of God, with the secondhand words by ancient people you never met.

I understand that the more man knows about the workings of things even on this earth....the more he realizes how much more there is to know.

So why are you rejecting the multitude of things that we do know? You're assuming that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a world-wide flood, in spite of the scientific evidence. If there is more to know, you won't know those things if you keep on rejecting the things that we do know now.

 

[Kolibri]

You mean, when nature is the witness how God created the world, it is lying because we're supposed to believe an ancient prophet rather than the direct testimony of nature?

The thing is, if nature is not what it tells us, then God intentionally made it deceive us. That's the God you want to believe in? I don't think so.


So nature doesn't not testify of how and what God did? Nature is lying, but ancient prophets you never met or even know much about are telling the truth?


And? So... Jesus hid things from the intellectuals, that means he was deceiving them. He was misleading them intentionally. Then you're suggesting that God tells lies.


Did you ever meet Paul? Talk to him? Do you know what his favorite food was? Hair color? You don't know much about the real person, but science can really test nature as it is, right here, right now. Which testimony is first hand, and which one is second hand?


They might not be... but also... they might be! Your choice is to override direct science about nature, the first hand witness of God, with the secondhand words by ancient people you never met.


So why are you rejecting the multitude of things that we do know? You're assuming that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a world-wide flood, in spite of the scientific evidence. If there is more to know, you won't know those things if you keep on rejecting the things that we do know now.

creationism teaches that the earth is 6000 years old. The Bible does not teach that.

The Hebrew word for "day" is a broad as the English word day. It can mean, daylight hours, it can mean a rotation of the earth on its axis, it can mean a person's lifetime, it can mean a era or an epoch.

All 6 creative days of Genesis 1 are summed up in one day in Genesis 2:4

 

[Kolibri]

Bible Chronology places the year Adam was created at 4026 B.C.E according to today's calendar and the start of the Flood of Noah's day in the year 2370 B.C.E.

The Bible infers that at least some trees had to have survived the event because when the dove was sent the 2nd to the last time - as a test to see if waters had drained off enough to disembark - it came back with "a freshly plucked olive leaf." (Ge 8:11)

 

[Ouroboros]

creationism teaches that the earth is 6000 years old. The Bible does not teach that.

Not according to the creationists. They're quite certain that the Bible teaches a 6,000 year old Earth. Just ask Ken Ham.

The Hebrew word for "day" is a broad as the English word day. It can mean, daylight hours, it can mean a rotation of the earth on its axis, it can mean a person's lifetime, it can mean a era or an epoch.

Does the "it was morning" or "it was evening" also have bread definitions? Think about it. Plants can't survive thousands of years without sunlight.

All 6 creative days of Genesis 1 are summed up in one day in Genesis 2:4

I agree that we shouldn't read Genesis literal. That's my point in my discussion with JayJayDee. Science is the method with which we learn how the world works and how old it is and such, and our believe in God must change according to the first hand witness: Nature.

Genesis is only an allegory. It's not history, science, or factual. It still contains valuable insights, but it's not to be read as a something standing in opposition to science. The interpretation of the story has to change according to the facts of science.

 

[Ouroboros]

Bible Chronology places the year Adam was created at 4026 B.C.E according to today's calendar and the start of the Flood of Noah's day in the year 2370 B.C.E.

The Bible infers that at least some trees had to have survived the event because when the dove was sent the 2nd to the last time - as a test to see if waters had drained off enough to disembark - it came back with "a freshly plucked olive leaf." (Ge 8:11)

And geology, anthropology, archeology, etc have no evidence for a world wide flood 4,000 years ago. So who's right? Science that reads nature, or the words of some ancient author that you never met?

 

[Kolibri]

Does the "it was morning" or "it was evening" also have bread definitions? Think about it. Plants can't survive thousands of years without sunligh

Morning and Evening is also used symbolically at Isaiah 21:12. Edom was promised a glimmer of hope when the threatening Assyrians were defeated but it would quickly turn to night when the Babylonians would oppress them. After the Babylonians the Persians and the Greeks did the same. The Herods in Jerusalem provided another brief "morning" for Edom during Roman rule but then they disappeared from history all together. "Dumah" or "silence" became their name. (Isaiah 21:11)

So it is not out of the question for Evening and Morning to show a progression of time with a continuance of events. The Book of Hebrews says we are still in the day of rest. So that day has already been 1000s of years long.

 

[Kolibri]

And geology, anthropology, archeology, etc have no evidence for a world wide flood 4,000 years ago. So who's right? Science that reads nature, or the words of some ancient author that you never met?

Methods of dating are subjective in these sciences. Carbon 14 dating is especially susceptible to atmospheric changes over time. I know I have not examined all the evidence, but there is a lot of rhetoric in scientific textbooks. I have much more than current scientific understanding to build confidence in the collection of books and letters in question. Taken all together, I trust in a Creator of physics to have the power and the wisdom to manipulate things in ways we do not understand with the tools and theories we have to date.

 

[Ouroboros]

Methods of dating are subjective in these sciences.

Not so much. (It follows mathematical and statistical distributions, it's not exact to the second, but it's statistically accurate.)

If there are 10,000 of some layers that only is made once a year, how many years would you "subjectively" consider that they represent?

Carbon 14 dating is especially susceptible to atmospheric changes over time.

Well, not that drastically, and also, the methods have been refined, and refined, and refined again. They also have been compared to each other to adjust any errors. There are more than 50 methods today. Some of them have to do with magnetic fields. Others with tree rings. Others with layers of ice. Others with chemical changes (several of them). Others deal with radioactive decay (and it's not as subjective as you might think since there's a ratio of the different matter needed). And they all say the same things. They all, all these methods, agree on the time. Oh, and then there's astronomical evidence. It's all there. It's just a matter of looking.

I know I have not examined all the evidence, but there is a lot of rhetoric in scientific textbooks.

Rhetoric? I think you chose the wrong word.

The Bible is more of a rhetorical writing than science books. Science books present the current theories, which you can even test and do labs on in the higher education.

I have much more than current scientific understanding to build confidence in the collection of books and letters in question. Taken all together, I trust in a Creator of physics to have the power and the wisdom to manipulate things in ways we do not understand with the tools and theories we have to date.

If God has the wisdom to manipulate (notice the word choice you made there) to make it in a way that we don't understand (or in the case of science, misunderstand), then God is intentionally deceiving scientists (according to the quotes mentioned before that God makes them look like fools). If scientists are wrong, then God is the one who fooled them (=deceived them).

--edit

one more thing about C14 method. There's been to date hundreds of thousands of tests done, and a few of them give strange results, but 99.999% of them don't. The majority shows the same numbers as the other methods do, and it all points to the same facts that humans have existed on this planet for a very long time, and that there never was a world flood in the past 10,000 years (or even millions of years).

 

[Ouroboros]

Morning and Evening is also used symbolically at Isaiah 21:12. Edom was promised a glimmer of hope when the threatening Assyrians were defeated but it would quickly turn to night when the Babylonians would oppress them. After the Babylonians the Persians and the Greeks did the same. The Herods in Jerusalem provided another brief "morning" for Edom during Roman rule but then they disappeared from history all together. "Dumah" or "silence" became their name. (Isaiah 21:11)

So it is not out of the question for Evening and Morning to show a progression of time with a continuance of events. The Book of Hebrews says we are still in the day of rest. So that day has already been 1000s of years long.

I'm glad that you can see that words in the Bible can be symbolic rather than literal (or scientific), which means that concepts like the first humans "Adam" and "Eve" might not be literal, but symbolic for mankind. Also, when Genesis speaks of God commanding the oceans to bring forth life, it can be read as a symbol for God instructing nature to produce life through evolution. And so on.

And even with Noah, we can read it as an analogy instead of a literal historical event, so there's no need to defend a world flood if the meaning of the story goes deeper than the literal text. If you understand Noah's story on an allegorical level, the historical component is inconsequential.

 

[Kolibri]

you are right rhetoric was probably a poor word choice. I mean just that often we hear about evolution stated as fact when it is still theory. We hear it all the time when watching tv shows about nature, etc.

 

[JayJayDee]

You mean, when nature is the witness how God created the world, it is lying because we're supposed to believe an ancient prophet rather than the direct testimony of nature?

Well......what you are saying is how man presently interprets nature. Does he know everything about it? Does he know how life began? Do you understand that science cannot even make a blade of grass? Yet somehow wants to us to believe that it just sprang out of nowhere......"poof"!......and we Bible believers are the ones who believe in fantasy!

The thing is, if nature is not what it tells us, then God intentionally made it deceive us. That's the God you want to believe in? I don't think so.

Again you are assuming that man interprets nature correctly....that there is nothing left to learn which could drastically alter things already believed to be correct. God certainly does not deceive anyone.....man on the other hand can be fooled by the devil. He has been for thousands of years.

So nature doesn't not testify of how and what God did? Nature is lying, but ancient prophets you never met or even know much about are telling the truth?

We have to differentiate between what is true and provable and what is assumed to be true without actual evidence. This is the difference between theory and fact....even reasonable people must acknowledge this.

And? So... Jesus hid things from the intellectuals, that means he was deceiving them. He was misleading them intentionally. Then you're suggesting that God tells lies.

See how easily the truth can be twisted? That is not what I said nor is it what Jesus said. The "wise and intellectual" ones consider themselves too intellectual to accept a God who is the Creator of all things, so as Paul said, he catches them in their own cunning. If they choose to believe what is only assumed, and teach it as though it is truth, then he allows them to believe their own delusions. (2 Thess 2:9-12) God doesn't tell lies, man does. If he accepts lies as truth, then God allows them to deceive themselves....it isn't for want of telling them, but it's because they want it that way.

Did you ever meet Paul? Talk to him? Do you know what his favorite food was? Hair color? You don't know much about the real person, but science can really test nature as it is, right here, right now. Which testimony is first hand, and which one is second hand?

I've never met Moses or Abraham or Jesus either but I know they existed. I don't consider these men to be figments of someone's imagination just because I never met them.

They might not be... but also... they might be! Your choice is to override direct science about nature, the first hand witness of God, with the secondhand words by ancient people you never met.

I consider the written word to be the first hand witness of God...that is the difference between you and me. Direct evidence from science is fine as long as is is actual evidence rather than speculation or educated guessing.

So why are you rejecting the multitude of things that we do know? You're assuming that the world is 6,000 years old

Well, actually I don't. I believe that the creative "days" were periods of many thousands of years in length....not 24 hour days. Gen 1: 1 is a simple statement that "in the beginning, God created". There is no timeframe mentioned between the creation of the universe and the preparation of earth for habitation. This could have been billions of years ago....the Bible allows for this.

I do not reject everything science says.....I reject what it speculates at times.

and that there was a world-wide flood, in spite of the scientific evidence.

Well, I believe that the earth once enjoyed a uniform climate. Unearthing palm trees in Siberia is pretty much evidence of that.

"In 2009 Joel Barker of Ohio State University discovered another ancient forest found on Ellesmere Island, which lies north of the Arctic Circle in Canada. It contained dried-out birch, larch, spruce, and pine trees. “About a dozen such frozen forests exist in the Canadian Arctic, but the newest site is the farthest north.” (Chang, Alicia, “Mummified Forest Reveals Climate Change Clues,” Huffington Post, December 16, 2010.)

“Though the ground is frozen for 1,900 feet down from the surface at Prudhoe Bay, everywhere the oil companies drilled around this area they discovered an ancient tropical forest. It was in frozen state, not in petrified state. It is between 1,100 and 1,700 feet down. There are palm trees, pine trees, and tropical foliage in great profusion. In fact, they found them lapped all over each other, just as though they had fallen in that position.” (Williams, Lindsey, The Energy Non-Crisis, 1980, p. 54.)"

Temperate Climates at the Poles | Genesis Park

If there is more to know, you won't know those things if you keep on rejecting the things that we do know now.

What I reject is what science assumes to know. I readily accept that which harmonises with God's word.
As I said....the word of God means more to me than the words or theories of men. Theories do not become facts just because people want to believe them.....so both sides of this issue rely on faith in its teachers.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, and to choose who you accept as your teachers.....as we all are.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are free to believe whatever you wish, and to choose who you accept as your teachers.....as we all are.

Fair enough. And thanks for the discussion.

 

[Sapiens]

Since we don't know any real detail apart from what is said in God's word, we cannot really put limits on the Creator when it comes to carrying out his purpose. Does he lack ability to do as he says? Humans do not have God's abilities...though some think they do.

This argument assumes something not in evidence, e.g., the existence of a god.

What if the earths crust did not have the depth of valleys and or the height of mountains as it did after the flood? A flatter more even surface of the earth could have easily been covered with water. God used a water canopy above the earth to deluge it besides the underground springs of water that came up from beneath. Drawing up the water and suspending at magnetic poles and holding the volume in a frozen state is a reasonable explanation for where the water went, in my view.

File this in the same folder as: "If my grandmother had two wheels she'd be a bicycle."

From the strictly limited human standpoint all of that may be true. But no one seems to allow for the operation of God's spirit on matters. If God can resurrect a human why should trees be a problem. If he created them in the first place, who said he couldn't recreate the life force in them? Same with any of the living things on this planet....."with God, nothing is impossible".

Nothing is impossible, merely implausible. You're back at square one needing to demonstrate that a god exists.

If God created humans with the ability to produce multiracial features in the first place, why is it difficult to imagine that after the Tower of Babel, human genetics could produce varied features within generations among groups who came together because they understood one another's language? God chose who spoke what language, thereby choosing the gene pool of each group.

and you found this theory in what crackerjack box? Your syllogism is dependent on the precedent: "If God created humans with the ability to produce multiracial features in the first place" and since you've yet to provide evidence of a god, you're stuck with a broken syllogism.

Using human reasoning and putting human limitations on a Creator of infinite power is a little short sighted in my book.

Inventing a god of the gaps is a little nonsensical in my book.

But we are all free to make up our own mind about things. Some have faith and some don't.

Yup, some think and some don't.

 

[JayJayDee]

This argument assumes something not in evidence, e.g., the existence of a god.
File this in the same folder as: "If my grandmother had two wheels she'd be a bicycle."
Nothing is impossible, merely implausible. You're back at square one needing to demonstrate that a god exists.
and you found this theory in what crackerjack box? Your syllogism is dependent on the precedent: "If God created humans with the ability to produce multiracial features in the first place" and since you've yet to provide evidence of a god, you're stuck with a broken syllogism.
Inventing a god of the gaps is a little nonsensical in my book.

Yup, some think and some don't.

LOL.... If you say so....... You, of course must be right. ......whoever you think you are.