₦airaland Forum

noetic15:
1. This piece has been in circulation on the internet for ages . . . but no one posted it on the forum. . .nezan did. . . .kudos to him for that.

@neotic, my good friend, that is not true. Quite a few times while surfing the net on Lennon, search engines led me to Nairaland where several posters already posted the same thing. Here are a few -

[list]Do Yhu Know These Facts? - by Missy B

Top Earning Dead Celebrities  - by spikedcylinder

Mocking God? - by layi

I Do Not Believe in God - by kaylala

Pastor Adeboye Says Satan Planned 49 Plane Crashes - by Jungle Queen

What The Bible Says About Death - by Mamajama[/list]

I just thought you should know.

lovenifest:
You already answered the question by agreeing that Atheists/Agnostics perform incantations.

I did not agree, please don't put words in my mouth. If I agreed, why should I be asking you about what is not true? Even the definitions of 'incantations' you gave do not make up for the gap - I have not seen where atheists and agnostics speak words "during a ritual, either a hymn or prayer invoking or praising a deity, or in magic, occultism, witchcraft with the intention of casting a spell or an object or a person" - do you care to show where atheists and agnostics have been casting spells of occultism and witchcraft on anyone? Please show that and let us learn, instead of making excuses that are not useful.

Chrisbenogor:
Na grammer you speak so, I have opened a thread here on nairaland to ask if uneducated people can even go to heaven, all this grammer and exegesis and analysis you do here, how many christians know what it means to be christian and they have to rely on interpretation from village headmasters? huh?

Huh?

Hehe.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Viaro, respectfully i believe it is going too far to ask him to tell what that "something" is. You know every well no human can possess such knowledge.

No, it is not going too far. While I thanked him for his views in quoting the quran, I already said in the OP that this thread was not intended to be 'some religious apocalyptic drama being rehearsed in the corridors of science and philosophy'. That was why I wondered where to open the thread and just left it in the Religious board for now. Again, it is for this reason that I have not been busy quoting texts from the Bible, even though I am very well aware of what Revelation says about the apocalypse.

When people try to so confidently assert certain things, it just makes me wonder whether they have considered the discussion before making contributions. I don't have anything with his quotes from the quran; but when he went as far as "interpreting" those verses for us, he has crossed some thin line and should be ready to address questions based on his interpretations (even though we know many Muslims who will tell you that once the quran is translated into any language, it ceases to be the quran).

lovenifest:
Rituals/Spells are not indicative of evil acts.

I didn't say they were, did I?

The traditional Religion do it as they believe it have a magical effect. (decoding Uinversal Language)

Where have you found atheists and agnostics doing and believing such things? That was what I wanted to know. Please stop making excuses.

Nezan:
I have no problem with your views. However, what I was trying to say was that a true Christian (not a nominal Christian), struggling to live above sin, is conscious of his failings and works on his spiritual life to try and make it right with God with the aid of the Holy Spirit. This can not be equated to an unbeliever, who consciously mocks God and makes fun of Him.

^^^What you refer to as the 'unbeliever' is not helpful here.

The [b]un[/b]believers that we know in our society do not pretend to be [b]un[/b]believers. They are not 'norminal Christians'.

However, to be even described as anything 'Christian' (where norminal, antinomian, carnal, worldly, or whatever adjective used), one has first to be a believer. Here is where we cross the line - you cannot describe someone as a 'believer' when they do not identify themselves with anything 'Christian' - and what I was describing was not having to do with 'unbelievers' but rather with believers, whoever they may be.

This is why the many NT warnings we read in the Bible are addressing Christians, not unbelievers.

Thanks for your views. However, a point of observation:

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=362859.msg5116581#msg5116581 date=1260877392]We deduce from the above two verses;
1- that the universe was separated from a whole, and[/quote]Hang on, mate. If the universe was separated from a whole, then that gives the idea that there are two entities -

      (a)  the Universe that was separated from the whole
      (b)  something from which the Universe was separated

Now please tell: what is that "something"?

lovenifest:
Here is my theory.
. . . >snip< . . .

5. Traditional Religion (Atheists, Agnostics etc)
Knowledge: Astronomy, Process: Rituals/Spells, Success: None

>sigh< 

Let me guess:

   Atheism and Agnosticism . . . are "traditional religions"?

   Atheism and Agnosticism . . . involve the "process" of - Rituals/Spells??

Where are the atheists and agnostics in the house?
Please, this is a new one on me: what "spells" do you cast in your 'process' of 'traditional religions'? Honestly, I haven't heard of such - and we learn everyday. So please share and let's see your incantations.

As for the OP, if your theory was a little more honest and intelligent, maybe people would pay just a little attention.

Nezan:
@ viaro; Living an unworthy life before God in my view, is different from mocking God.

^^^ That's your view, and viaro has no problems with that. However, from the Bible itself, it is evident that living an unworthy life quite simply equates to mocking God.

[list]Galatians 6:7-8
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.[/list]

Maybe you have not noticed that the verse above is a warning to CHRISTIANS as the epistle was written to Christians.

^^^ more lies.

If you ask viaro whether he believes that the parting of the red sea was literal, he will tell you that it was figurative.

Have you asked me? This is why this shameless lying and career in your style to put words in people's mouths is the best that your own version of Christianity can offer the public. Thank you all the same.

_{<viaro shrugs his shoulders.>}

'Men who mocked God'.  There are many 'Christians' today who are mocking God and yet not even having a clue what they are doing. Let me look at it another way:

We understand what it means in Christian parlance to 'hold onto Jesus', don't we? The question that has been crossing my mind for a while now is this: how are Christians today holding Jesus before the eyes of the world? Luke 22:63 highlights this problem well in just one line: "And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him."  Astonishing. It just shows that even today, many who have "held Jesus"  are the very ones who are both mocking and smiting Him in public eyes.

How is this possible? Yes, we mock Him when we tell 'beautiful lies' on His behalf in order to defend our faith as 'scientific' when everyone knows we're cheating on such matters. We also mock Him when we prefer to employ fundamentalism, facade,  fabrications and face-saving in our public lives instead of fidelity to His love.

We mock Him when we make so much of our own denominations and yet be out of reach with the very people we ought to be reaching out to. This mockery goes on every week when the only thing that drives our enthusiasm these days is the other 'master' - mammon.

Before we get too concerned about how 'others' are mocking God, perhaps we need to wake up and address our own mockery of God. How do we stand to mock Him and yet not feel the pain of our own loss? How do we ever stand to bear the shame of such mockery from ourselves in quoting verses against people who interpret matters differently from our own dogma?  How is it that many of us would applaud these mockeries against Him and expect the communities around us to be positively impacted? Is it not such impudence against God from Christians that make many people complain that the increase of churches has not lessened crimes in their countries?

When will these 'holy men' be ashamed of their own mockery of God before pointing out the same thing in others? Would it be said of many of us that "the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him"?? How are we as Christians holding Jesus today in the eyes of the public?

OLAADEGBU:
Here are some questions I want you to ponder about and see for yourself if there was no need for a global flood as you have suggested.  It is either you believe the Word of God or the words of men such as viaro who scoffs at the Word of God, playing to the gallery.

kolaxy:
@Olaadegbu, please don't stress up yourself too much about this issue. You've tried your best. They perfectly understand you the first time but chose to ignore your points because it totally contradict their own understanding.

@kolaxy and OLAADEGBU,

It is disgraceful to lie as Christians. Nothing you say matters when you turn round and begin to be dubious.

Dear kolaxy, have you noticed that your friend and mentor OLAADEGBU never ever addresses any point that are presented even after his own objections have been well addressed? If someone does not know something, it is better to either keep quiet or simply say he/she does not know. But to pretend to know and teach science while lying in the face of plain facts is not only disgraceful, it is evil. If God can put up with your lies, then the 'Christianity' you both preach is fantasy and only makes matters worse.

kolaxy:
You should by now understand that, the way you are looking at the Noah's flood is different from the way they are seeing it. You are looking at it Biblically while they are looking at it scientifically.

That is true - we are all looking at it both Biblically and scientifically. The problem with OLA is that he does not know science at all and wants to lie on top of everything else to bend science into what he makes up from the Bible. Posters in this thread are not arguing from the air - we have all tried to look at verses from the Bible, discuss their possible meanings, asked questions (which OLA never answers but rather makes excuses for), and then examine the YEC interpretations of those verses from a scientific perspective.

There's nothing wrong with the texts in those verses. The problem is with interpretations given to those verses by YEC apologists and apprentices. Why does anyone have to dribble in such things as volcanoes, tectonic ruptures, etc. into the narrative of Noah's Flood when it is clear that no verse in Genesis mentions such things, directly or indirectly?

Besides all this, science on the other hand is not even the problem either. The Bible is not against science - real science (not the pseudoscience of YEC/YUC) - and we are especially cautioned to beware of "science falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20) which the YEC enthusiasts often parade to pride themselves with. When folks from YUC often argue that science is faulty, wrong, etc., then something is terribly wrong with those folks . . terribly wrong. In fact, for these folks, all sciences are 'wrong' because of one thing: they do not fit into the pseudoscience of YEC/YUC.

Test the above on a few things: in addition to the main sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, etc., all the sciences listed below are 'wrong' as well only because YEC/YUC have problems screwing them into the latch of their own pseudoscience -

             ~  Paleontology
             ~  Astronomy & Astrophysics
             ~  Sociology
             ~  Anthropology
             ~  Cytology
             ~  Genetics
             ~  Anatomy
             ~  Physiology
             ~  Taxonomy
             ~  Systems Analysis
             ~  Geography and Geology
             ~  Oceanography
             ~  Seismology
             ~  Geometry
             ~  Histology

There are more; but these are disciplines which I have patiently listened to YEC trying to argue against as all 'wrong' because - yes, 'just because' - they present problems for the YEC 'model' of doing 'science'. Ask what is this 'model' based on, and the answer is nearly always "the Universe and the earth and everything are 6,000 years old". Either that, or the Christian who speaks differently about science is a 'false teacher, a spiritual rebel', or 'an evolutionist with bedfellows'.

The one thing that gladdens me is that when you guys are too busy accusing everyone else, the world has moved on beyond your traditional and fundamentalist careers. Your accusations only remind me of one thing: if they have accused Jesus of being Beelzebub, does it surprise me that you guys would also accuse other Christians in the same manner (Matt. 10:25)?

If it is not enough for you to try and put words in God's mouth and lie on His behalf, would anyone be surprised why you can't deal with simple issues and never honestly address anything that is presented here? Not to even mention the laugh of your pretended 'science' that beggars reality.

Hi Deep Sight,

Please pardon my weighing in on the pep talk between you and wirinet. Understanding that there are two issues involved, I shall try to not confuse them:

(a) the amount of water available on earth at any one time through history

(b) the displacement/placement of water on earth

The case hitherto discussed has to do with (a) above, I suppose, especially in reference to the supposed global Noahic flood. Before anything is said, the two initial questions that everyone is interested in are these:

~ how could there have been such volume of water for such a global flood?

~ where did the water run-off to after such a global flood?

The second question does not even begin to make sense until the first is well addressed. Anything to suggest where all the water went would necessarily be contingent on where all that water came from in the first place.

Now when people talk about seismic activities (such as seismic shifts) in respect to the second question, we're not then looking at its solution; rather, we're looking at far more problems and gaps than could be contained within what is being discussed. Even so, I do not understand how such seismic shifts would help to throw light on the global flood being discussed.

mazaje:
The problem is that your post NEVER address anything at all. . . .

Hehehe. . you're wasting your time on OLAADEGBU et al. I was long finished with his tenuous repetitions that address nothing other than blame everything and everyone on 'evolution' even when the thread is not about Evolution.

Where is your scientific  evidence to show that there were Volcanic eruption and earth quakes through out the planet about 4500 years ago? Scientific evidence pls. . .

Are you asking for his funeral?    The guy does not know what science is - it's a catchword he uses to lie when reason escapes through the back door. The guy obviously does not know what a volcano is, and it is one of his favourite terms that peppers his mythos.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
@ viaro

Your debate with Ken Ham will be scheduled for Next week. . . be prepared. . . . . Even though I disagree with your theistic views but my hat is off for you. . . .Much respect. . . .

Good one, my guy. I can't wait!

@OLAADEGBU,

OLAADEGBU:
It's time to put up my HMM quotes to warn Christians.

You should be warning yourself about these sleek falsehood you've been bantering. The devil also quoted Scripture, and you're quite aware of that. I don't refer to you as a devil; but those who spread lies are doing the work of the devil - so says Jesus Christ our Lord (John 8:44).

If you don't know something, please shut up instead of running to HMM for soothing balm. To go about making false assertions is not a Christian thing to do - and coming back to 'warn' Christians when you don't take heed to yourself is simply a laugh.

Rather than take the time to educate yourself about the matters you're trying to discuss, you conclude that Christians who do not follow you blindly are false teachers, spiritual rebels, or have evolutionary bedfellows. Everything about AiG and HMM must by about 'evolution' if it does not square with their YEC/YUC or 15 cubit height of water submerging 19,119 cubit heights of mountain summits. Does it then surprise me to find the same thing showing up in your recent post paste from HMM?

OLAADEGBU:
Many who profess to be Christian intellectuals today are arguing that we should defer to the evolutionists in matters of science and history, since the real message of the Bible is spiritual.

That's an obvious lie. I am a Christian and have made clear that I'm not a fan of Darwinism. As a matter of consequence, there is not a single place where I have hinted that other Christians should defer to evolutionists. This paper-thin excuses are beyond a joke!

Besides, this thread is not about 'evolution' but about the dogma of YEC/YUC and their shallow arguments. One does not have to be an evolutionist to see how far between are the innuendoes of YECs. When you have nothing to present that would make sense even to yourself, you run to HMM for posts complaining about 'evolution'. Of course, I had a hunch you would simply gloss over the questions that were presented to you and rather rush for first-aid to HMM.  I already noticed you're out of steam, so enjoy the balm.

OLAADEGBU:
@viaro,

If you had been patient enough to watch Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt's video you would realised that what he was presenting was the laws of nature about information and not what you are babbling about.

OLAADEGBU, it's either you are confused or just on Nairaland to circulate deliberate falsehood and declare them divine. . . or the only other way I could understand and feel sorry for you is perhaps that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about when it comes to the mention of the word 'science'.

I already saw the vids by Dr. Werner Gitts before you posted them, and my keeping quiet about it up until now was to provide us both with an opportunity to discuss. What you have repeatedly done is confuse terms and make them up as you go along. In those vids, Dr. Gitts speaks of "ten scientific laws of information" - and that was what I was interested in and consequently requested that you provide us with. What are those 'ten scientific laws of information' that no scientist talks about in established science? Is it not clear to you that Dr. Gitt was just making catch phrases to help people like you who are too busy confusing yourselves?

But now you have come back to remodel it to 'the laws of nature about information'. Please stand steady or just shut up. Do you realise that they are NOT the same thing? Are you that dense or just trying to confuse people who may not notice the subtle disfference? So which is it -

            ~   laws of nature?

            ~   laws of information?

                              or. .

            ~   laws of nature about information?

Either way, you are obviously a confused fellow looking out to gull others.  Before you do any further damage to your brain, please humble yourself and do just a little review of what is referred to in science as '[url=http://Laws of Nature]Laws of Nature[/url]' from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online. You will find examples of laws of nature clearly set out.

As to the 'ten scientific laws of information' that Dr. Gitts talks about, I have asked you to please delineate them to show where scientists have published them in established science. I often use the clause 'established science' for people like you who often confuse science for the circus show you put up here; otherwise science is just science - or, a proper term for guys like you is pseudoscience.

OLAADEGBU, where are those 'ten scientific laws of information' in established science?

I know you are eager to show us what you know but learn a bit of wisdom by looking before you leap because you have gone off on a tangent.

I'm not eager to show anything and have said before that viaro is not that intelligent - always willing to learn. If I went off tangent, bless me by correctly showing where in established science any scientists ever speaks of the 'ten scientific laws of information' - just simply point them out from authentic sources as I have done for 'laws of nature' from Standford Encyclopedia.

Didn't I warn you to learn from others unless you want us to know that you know it all.

I don't know it all and have always wanted to learn; so please oblige my request above. Thank you in advance.

In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood.  A partial judgment in Noah’s day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.  This was not referring to any pre-adamic Flood that they called Lucifer Flood.

A partial judgement in the one case does not equate a partial judgement in the other case. We see several examples again and again in the OT showing types and archetypes of New Testamental realities. A 'partial' example of fire poured out on Sodom and Gomorrha in judgement prefigures what would happen in a wider scale on the ungodly - the same apostle Peter makes that case clear in 2 Peter 2:6.

If the Flood were only local, how could the waters rise to 20 feet (6 m) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)?

I don't know - and that is what I am waiting for you to explain, rather than throwing back the question like you're also perplexed like the rest of us!    Please explain how 20 feet of water can submerge mountain summits that are thousands of times higher than that!

Water seeks its own level; it could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

Good point, bro - good point. If you don't know already, you just disfigured and discomfitted your YEC/YUC argument for a global flood! Welcome to our world!!

After the interlude, you can shout again - nothing beyond this point makes any sense from you any more. Well done.

Even what is now Mt. Everest was once covered with water and uplifted afterward.

By what - 15 cubic height of Noah's flood, no? Are you serious?

Before the Flood, the mountains were not so high.

Ahh, you're now desperate! No, the 'mountains' could not have been high enough for YEC/YUC to dribble and cut corners for 15 cubits to submerge summits of 19,119 cubits! In fact, the 'mountains' were as flat as a carpet - the type my muslim friends call 'Dahaha'. Hehehe! M-a-n! You're a character!

The mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated up-exertion.  And in support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt. Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.  For more details on this click Here.

It is only AiG (Answers in Genesis) and folks at ICR that make you believe such trash. Send them an email to do a small research about the age of any mountain - they would surprise themselves if they cared enough to attempt it!

Besides, I've appealed to you to stop cheating with plate tectonics - Genesis nowhere mentions any inference for it, directly or indirectly. If you believe so, I asked that you showed it by quoting and discussing the verses. too hard?

If we even out the ocean basins and flatten out the mountains, there is enough water to cover the entire earth by about 1.7 miles (2.7 km) ( www.wku.edu/~smithch/S728-3.htm ).  Also important to note is that, with the leveling out of the oceans and mountains, the Ark would not have been riding at the height of the current Mt. Everest, thus no need for such things as oxygen masks either.

Everest towers at a peak no less than 8km above sea level; and there's no need to try and level all the mountains so that they can be flat enough for your 2.7km of flood to submerge them. as for the oxygen thingy, I was going to mention it - but you anticipated me. It therefore means that Noah's Ark could not have been cruising at heights above mountain summits all over the world at such altitude, or they would have been long dead before the flood dried out!

There’s more and I repeat, if the Flood were a local flood, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

I trashed that and gave examples. Anything new, or you just want to keep repeating these weak excuses?

God put a rainbow in the sky as a covenant between God and man and the animals that He would never repeat such an event.  There have been huge local floods in recent times (e.g., in Bangladesh); but never has there been another global Flood that killed all life on the land.

That's because Noah's flood was not global - even your own evidence kills your argument. 

Now, to you, OLAADEGBU.

OLAADEGBU:
And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered (Genesis 7:19–20).

Many Christians today who claim that the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood believe this because they have accepted the widely believed evolutionary history of the earth, which interpretes fossil layers as the history of the sequential appearance of life over millions of years.

Since discussing this subject with you, there is not once in any of my post I have argued for evolution. This constant reference to "evolution" is a paper-thin excuse for your inability to face up to the question being asked in view of your YEC/YUC make-belief stories. It is the usual games (very embarassing) that YEC apologists often make when they run out of steam - they just point fingers and write everyone and everything off as 'evolution' without a clue what that term means.

Since I have not discussed Genesis 7:20 as an topic of evolution, could you kindly drop your excuses and face up to the simple question I asked earlier? ~~ "You would have to reconcile the 'magic' in these dimensions and show me how a mere 15 cubit of water would cover the top of a mountain range with a summit of 19,119 cubit!" Have you even attempted it? No; rather we only read your whining about 'evolution' that helps you to conveniently play these games and dance away from reason.

Scientists once understood the fossils, which are buried in water-carried sediments of mud and sand, to be mostly the result of the great Flood. Those who now accept millions of years of gradual accumulation of fossils have, in their way of thinking, explained away the evidence for the global Flood. Hence, many compromising Christians insist on a local flood.

One doesn't have to be a Darwinist before seeing that 15 cubits of water cannot submerge mountain peaks of 19,119 cubits! Please try again.

Secularists deny the possibility of a worldwide Flood at all. If they would think from a biblical perspective, however, they would see the abundant evidence for the global Flood. Thery will have to first believe it before they can see it.

Secularists often deny the traditional interpretation of YECs because the latter spin 'science' on its head and ask everyone to take teir curriculum from the Bible - yet, not even you have been able to show us how God created your famed 'laws of physics' and 'laws of chemistry' in any page of the Bible! It were better for people like you to stop making noise and start using your reasoning faculty.

Those who accept the evolutionary timeframe, with its fossil accumulation, also rob the Fall of Adam of its serious consequences. They put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering, and death, before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world. In doing this, they also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ. Such a scenario also robs all meaning from God’s description of His finished creation as "very good."

I can show you also that you are wrong to assert that Adam and Eve brought death into the world; so again, that has nothing to do with evolutionists who are minding their own business investigating other scientific issues of concern in their field. Statements such as the one you just made there demonstrate you don't know your Bible and have been too busy being a slave to the HMM quotes you often post as first-aid where your assertions are checked up.

As I said earlier, if the Flood only affected the area of Mesopotamia, as some here claim, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped. No one has told me why. And most importantly, if the Flood were local, people not living in the vicinity of the Flood would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.

Don't lie. I already told you that the Ark was not necessitated by the extent of the flood, whether local or global. And you are also fond of not answering questions put to you, so what are you yapping on about and grumbling like your own question is the best thing since sliced bread?

For those who count the Words of Jesus to mean anything, He certainly believed that the Flood killed every person not on the Ark. What else could Christ mean when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37–39)?

The word "all" is often used in Scripture (both OT and NT) in reference to a particular group of identities and is not meant to be taken to mean something that is wider than the group identities to which it appertains. This is an example of the 'deixis' I earlier hinted upon - look for references to 'locational characteristics of a situation', as is clear from the following example:

[list] The plague of the locust in EGYPT - local or global?

Read Exodus 10:14-15, KJV --
[list][li]And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such. For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.[/li][/list]

[/list]
[list]The Bible clear reports that the locust in that plagued covered "the whole earth", according to Exodus 10:15.

Questions:

(a) Could we then argue that the plague of Moses upon Egypt was global as well?

(b) If no, why - afterall, the Bible as the Word of God declares that its extent was THE WHOLE EARTH?

(c) If yes, then do you have any evidence (scientific, philosophic, logical, archeological, or even YEC/YUC) to show a plague of locust that covered all the earth?[/list]

If you compare these two events, you find that they share certain things in common:

* they both depict God's divine temporal judgement on rebellion

* they both speak in language to make the reader suppose it is global

* they both contain Biblical deixis

It's easier for YECs to say that the plague of locust was not global even though it speaks of "the whole earth" - but not so easy for them to see the same deixis in the Genesis flood. You know why? I think for one: they are too busy shouting against evolution that they can't see simple issues right in front of their own eyes - even if God were to come down and show them!

Krayola:
Helllooooo?!?! Was Noah 600 years old when he saved all the world's species from extermination?

kkrrrrinngg!! >>Your phonecall is not coming through. . . line busy. Please try again later!<<

aletheia:
1. I was addressing the specific point about mountains such as Everest. That the flood is global is clearly indicated in the scriptures.

The flood is not global - and that is clear when one carefully studies the verses and asks relevant questions, rather than hold on to traditional interpretations that continually present problems for YEC/YUCs.

2. Plate tectonics is the theory developed in the early 20th century by man to explain why the continents are where they are today after noticing that the continents all fitted together like pieces of a jigsaw. Before then the view was that the continents were formed in their present locations by a process of uplift. Clearly then the bible was way ahead of "modern" science when it indicated all the land was in one place in Gen 1:9-10.

I have 3 things to say to you:

(a) since plate tectonics was invented by man to explain the position and movements of the continents, YEC/YUCs should not be using what was invented by man - they should stick to their curriculum harvested from AiG, HMM and ICR. Unfortunately, while you are here compalining, look through OLAADEGBU's posts and see how tenously he has attempted to dribble in volcanoes, tectonic ruptures, etc to pepper his weak attempts to explain the inconsistencies of his YEC theories.

(b) the Bible was not way ahead of modern science - on the contrary, modern science has left tradionalists far behind as to retire the ideas of YEC as antic and musuem artifacts!

(c)  you are only assuming that Genesis 1:9-10 teaches that the land was in one place - that is not what those verses teach, please. The appearance of dry land has nothing to do with continents forming from Pangea through Laurasia and Gwandanaland. nada, nothing, zilch.

I wonder how "primitive, superstitious" men who wrote the bible could have known that?

Simple: because they were not describing what YEC is putting into their mouths! Those 'primitive' men were not describing any plate tectonic and continetal drifts, or the mountain peaks of Everest in the Himalayas.

BTW Gen 1:9 does not speak about the dry land appearing from the deluge. Are we reading from the same bible?

We are reading the same Bible, this is what Genesis 1:9 says: "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."

Call it 'deluge' or 'alluvion', they are the same concepts expressed; and Peter the apostle makes clear that the earth was submerged in water before Noah's time: "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water" - 2 Peter 3:5.  Did you care to read that verse in your own Bible? Huh?

"Pangea" & "Supercontinent" are man-made terms describing what is revealed in Gen 1: 9-10.

No bother - Genesis 1:9 does not describe either Pangea or a supercontinent.

3. What makes you think Genesis 10:25 does not refer to "continental split". The Hebrew word translated "earth" erets is quite specific and is the same word used in Gen 1:10: "And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good." The word palag is from a primitive root meaning to split; and is thus translated divided.

Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself? Let me guess: the continental split - when did it occur:

         ~ in Genesis 1:9-10?

         ~ in Genesis 10:25?

Either answer is not the same as the other - they are NOT the same; and we cannot dribble in ideas that those verses never speak of. If the earth split in Genesis 10, what exactly was the nature of these splits? Does it refer to continental formations? How? Into how many continents?

Stop introducing red herrings: the verse does not indicate the number of continents formed neither it's impact on the lives of those alive then, so I cannot answer those questions.

The reason you cannot answer is because you were dribbling in what was not there in the first place. Where the Bible speaks about such an event of physical landmasses splitting up by any means, it is clear as to its effect - such as in Zech. 14:4 . .

         '. . . and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east
          and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the
          mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.'

Language cannot be clearer, and just there it shows that when landmasses split, effects are noticeable:

            (a)  the specific landmass is mentioned (mount of Olives)
            (b)  what happens - 'cleave in the midst'
            (c)  their relative directional movement noted:
                        'toward the east and towards the west'
            (d)  the effects produced thereby:
                        'there shall be a very great valley'
                        'half of the mountain shall remove toward the north',
                        'and half of it toward the south'

When you're too busy splitting Pangea in Genesis 1 or 10 that those chapters do not mention, it will not surprise me that you would cry red herring where you cannot answer simple questions challenging your assumptions. If I am looking for splitting of landmasses, ut won't be in Genesis where such a thing was not mentioned - I rather would look elsewhere like Zech. 14:4 where even the effects are disclosed.

However it was a memorable and noteworthy event, hence the name Peleg from the verb palag.

hehe. . where are the continents or effects of that 'peleg'?

4. As for Everest occuring after Noah? Peleg was a descendant of Noah. "Elementary, my dear Watson."

HAHAHA!! I cannot laugh. . . no, guffaw!!   I thought I'd heard the last of it. . but no, now it's 'peleg' that formed Everest! What kind of cachinnation did I let myself into tonight?!?  

The earth is not as old "scientists" would have us believe.

No. .  it was created yesterday, according to archbishop Watson!

aletheia:
The account in Genesis makes it clear that the flood was global.

Not so fast, because you seem to have jumbled ideas together from various verses here and there to draw that conclusion. So let's have a look:

Gen 7:20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

Those who use this verse to argue against the possibility of a global flood make an unsubstantiated assumption: that mountains like Everest existed in Noah's time.

Please show me how it is that Everest only emerged after Noah's flood - just show me and we can rest the case.

If you care to know, Everest and several other mountains of great summits are older than 6,000 years old - because plate tectonics reveal that the folding and faulting of the earth's crust to form continental plates and various landforms is a gradual process rather than a cataclysmic, apocalyptic occurence. These processes are still going on today, and many sources from such studies believe Everest to be about 60 million years old. This is after careful consideration of the process of its formation.

Yet, it is not only Everest that is dated this way from considerations of the process of mountain formations. Take a look at the careful description of the Rocky mountains of North America and see how information about it is carefully laid out in Wikipedia. These landforms were not formed within a year, as is generally believed by YEC/YUC apologists who have nothing to present as evidence than paper-thin noise making.

A examination of the shapes of the continents would show that they fit together like pieces of a jigsaw, evidence that all the land was once in one place as recorded in Gen 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

The geosciencific theory of Pangea does not lend support to Genesis 1:9 which speaks only about dry land appearing from a deluge. That verse does not speak about a supercontinent, or it would indeed have indicated their divisions into Laurasia and Gondwanaland. There's nothing to indicate this at all in Genesis, and it is a very poor guess you attempted there.

As such the topography of the earth would have been markedly different from today.

True, for we know that the topography of many places change within short or long periods of time - but that is especially as affected by other environmental factors.

https://roslank.com/acheh.gif

satellite images of Acheh before and after a tsunami

At some time in the past the continents split apart: Gen 10:25 To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

This is a laugh! My dear friend, Genesis 10:25 is not reference to continental splits - you would have to do better than that and show us how many continents were formed if that were the case. Not only so, please show us the impact of such a continental split during someone's lifetime.

The Himalayan range, of which Everest is a part is formed by the Indian Subcontinent pushing into the Eurasian land mass.

How old is that landmass?

Deep Sight:
Ok Viaro, i get your point.

Nice to know.

Deep Sight:
[quote author=wirinet link=topic=363748.msg5103417#msg5103417 date=1260702353]There are numerous scientific notions that dismisses the case for a global flood. One i have already put forward that no Christian is ready to answer is, Where did all the extra water come from?

You apparently have not considered all the water locked up as ice in the north and south poles, glaciers, etc.

A partial melting alone, of Iceland, Greenland, or antartica is sufficient to produce more water than you can possibly imagine.[/quote]Lol, I don't think that the icecaps and glaciers of the polar regions answer the question at all. Let's remember one thing here: the argument here is the notion of a Noahic global flood, not just any flood howsoever defined differently.

One has to read the Genesis narratives about the Flood to understand what is being argued. Whatever conclusions anyone might come to, there's no denying the facts that -

          *   the account does not mention anything about volcanoes, tectonic ruptures,
               and all the other inuendoes that YEC/YUC claim to pepper the argument for
               a global flood.

          *   15 cubits of flood height (Gen. 17:20) just cannot cover the summits and
               peaks of mountains which are thousands of times higher than that
               measurement - not even if anyone cuts corners and explains it by the way
               NIV renders the verse (see the NIV note on that verse)

         *    nowhere does the Bible speak about a freezing of the waters into icecaps
               of glaciers as explaning where all that water must have disappeared to -
               rather, the Biblical explanations for the run-off of the flood are found in
               such verses as Genesis 8:3, 5, &  13 -
                "the waters returned from off the earth continually"
                "the waters decreased continually"
                "the waters were dried up from off the earth"
               Question: returned to where? decreased to where?

         *    the description of the flood is said to be one that completely submerged
               all the mountains and the hills - by 'global', YEC/YUC believe it was worldwide;
               therefore, the sheer volume of water for this global phenomena cannot be
               explained simply as water that "dried up" or a run-off of the flood as
               'returned/decreased continually'; nor can it be explained by icecaps and
               glaciers.

         *    Even if we allow for glaciers, that is still a paultry volume of water to have
               completely submerged the entire earth to a height of over 8 kilometers all
               around the world - where did all that water (over 8 km worldwide) just
               disappear to?

It is not as if there could not have been a Noahic flood; and it is not only the Bible that describes a flood which is considered global in extent. I believe the flood was local, even in the language of the narrator in the Genesis account.

^^That, in a way, is a great way to understand it - and I agree with you.

Spacetime as a single continuum which is the 4th dimension (perhaps viaro is still wrong, I'm willing to learn):

space-time, noun:
the four-dimensional "fabric" that is the result when space and time become one
http://library.thinkquest.org/10148/glossary.shtml

Space-time: The combination of three spatial dimensions, length, width, and height, with time. The four together form the four-dimensional nature of our Universe. The effects of gravity can be regarded, as a result of the curving of space-time due to the presence of massive objects.
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/education/resources/gravity/vocabulary.shtml

spacetime: a union of space and time originally emerging from special relativity. Can be viewed as the "fabric" out of which the universe is fashioned; it constitutes the dynamical arena within which the events of the universe take place.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/glossary.html

spacetime
The theory of relativity says that time cannot be treated absolutely separately from space, only in one observer's relative view. So space and time together describe a four dimensional universe.
http://www.cpepweb.org/main_universe/glossary.html#spacetime

Certainly, there are many sources on the net where time is usually called the 4th dimension - but if that is going to make sense even to those who make such arguments, one needs to ask: in relation to what is 'time' the 4th dimension? If time stands on its own, it is useless to speak of it as the 4th dimension in either Euclidean geometry or theoretical physics.

This is why we should endeavour to first set aside personal ideas that have no bearing in the sciences that discuss the terms we use.

With regards to 'everything', I don't know, honestly.

If specific examples could be given, then maybe we all could throw in our bits here and there - no one's ideas are perfect in these things.

But if we take the landmasses like continents, for example, then the theory of plate tectonics tells us that the continents actually 'move' relative to their positions over time - which is why the continents look diffeferent today than they could have looked in the past:

[img]http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/maps-data-pub/publications/geobits/graphics/pangea250masm.gif[/img]

[img]http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/maps-data-pub/publications/geobits/graphics/pangea65masm.gif[/img]

redsun:
How does the move as regards orbiting the sun,even when the static objects on earth remains the same,static?

Uhm, what 'static objects' might that be?

Deep Sight:
Altogether and absolutely wrong Viaro. I'll let Wikipedia speak, not me -

If you could grasp the Wikipedia article, good; if not, it still does not mean that time on its own is the 4th dimension - that is simply wrong. Go back and understand the key word there that you might have skipped (hint: a combination)  -

Spacetime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

Even in Euclidean geometry, time is not said to be the 4th dimension without relation to anything else: hence, my statement that "It is meaningless to describe time as the 4th dimension on its own"; that is, without relation to any other constant.

Deep Sight:
Rather than duplicate threads i think we should simply ressurect that thread so some of the things already said there needn't be repeated.

That's a good idea; but if I understand beneli and the concerns highlighted there, it might be better to open a new thread to discuss issues of interest to particle physics such as the behaviour of electrons, particles, waves, consciousness and intelligence in matter, etc - all which might again just spiral away from the singularity and infinity discussion in the existing thread.

Pastor AIO:
When we ask how the universe will end aren't we making a big presupposition that history, and the processes that make up history, are linear (or tangential)? In other words that they start at a certain point and proceed up until another point and then stop there.

What about the possibility that process could be cyclical? Ie. that points could be revisited creating a loop that means that things will go on forever with every event recurring at some point or the other.

Pastor AIO, astute observation, and thank you. It is possible also (among other considerations) that we might be looking at a 'loop' os sorts. Cosmologists as well as particle and theoretical physicists hypothesize that the 'end' of the universe would not really be its 'end', but just a prelude to what is known as 'eternity' (as was pointed out in the OP). In a sort of way, this leaves open the question of whether the Big Bang and other cosmological theories are actually the 'beginning' of the Universe, or merely describing one among many such cosmological phases of 'beginnings' in this loop of eternity. That is, one 'end' is a singularity expressed as a prelude to another 'beginning' that will yet have an 'end' for yet another singularity to begin. .  ad infinitum.

beneli:
These are questions, which one should attempt to answer in the topic about the 'fabric' of infinity and eternity. Perhaps, we could move the video and the questions to the new topic. What do you think Viaro?

Goodness me! Are you kidding me? Lol. I actually had the very same thing in mind and in a sort of way it seems as if we have a cloned mind about these things!   My world!!

Please feel free to move, remodel, or whatever! I just can't wait!

Talking about having similar ideas, the very things (and more) you have highlighted were the things I had in mind when I opened another thread - Of Singularities and Infinities - but slowed down because it seemed the discussion would just spiral out of shape and enter a blackhole of its own. So a separate thread as you proposed would/might just be the thing. Good thinking, beneli.