Amaleq13

No, you have unsubstantiated speculation and your acceptance of it allows you to retain your beliefs despite any possible evidence to the contrary.

Stephen T-B

"The pressure from continenal breakup cause most of the destruction on earth." (Byers)

And this is described in the Bible?
Where?

-Jay-

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

Robert, when you get into wild speculation like this, you're not only ignoring real science, you're showing a profound (and puzzling) disrespect for your own source material.

Modern creationisms (note the plural) have strayed so far from the Biblical core that it's almost not fair to call it a religious position anymore.

In order to address observational reality, creationists have had to distort the Biblical stories to the point where they're almost unrecognizable - verses with literal intent become metaphors and vice versa, critters like Behemoth and Leviathan become dinosaurs, the flood suddenly starts shoving continents around - layer after layer of absurdity piled on top of a set of etiological myths that are pretty darned absurd to begin with.

As soon as you make a statement like:

You've left the Biblical boundaries you supposedly respect. In doing so, you've acknowledged, at least in the back of your mind, that the Biblical narrative doesn't cut it as an explanatory tool.

Of course there's a problem. The "original readers" would have been reading the material centuries after the supposed flood. The lack of any evidence anywhere (geographically, geologically, archaeologically, in Biblical texts, in extra-Biblical texts...) that there were vast and (in geological terms) instantaneous changes in geography, and the tremendous amount of consilient evidence to the contrary essentially seals the case that the geographical situation of the "original readers" and the world today are, to all intents and purposes, the same. The "difference" you mention is an illusion of your own creation. The only coherent reason for the Biblical writers to use a real place-name is to anchor the story in areas that the readers would know.

The Bible fails this test of Geography. It is wrong. Your muddled excuses don't rescue the Bible from being wrong here, and in fact compoud the problem by requiring the Biblical writers to be idiots.

More incomprehensible Byersian gobbledygook. The river flowed out of Eden, split into four other rivers, each of which flowed ultimately to the sea.

The Bible is wrong on geography, Robert. Accept it. It'll hurt for a while, but it can't possibly be any more painful than the logical contortions you're already performing.

regards,

NinJay

WVIncagold

I thought the point of creationism was to make the bible inerrant and fit any little screwball unscientific nonsense to prove the bible is inerrant.

Stephen T-B

How many post-Flood people "knew the pre-Flood georgraphy" Robert?

All were descended from Mr and Mrs Noah, right?
How much of it did those two know?
Travellers, were they? Had maps? At meal times on the Ark, after all the 100,000s of animals had been fed and watered and their poop and urine cleared up, did the Noah family sit round the table and Daddy'd fetch out his maps and say "Here's the Euphrates."?
And somehow the boys
a) knew what he was talking about
b) memorised the details so well that after the Flood and the entire topography of the world had altered out of all recognition - there being mountains where none had been before, seas where none had been before and entire continents where none had been before - they could still visualise where the pre-Flood Euphratese had been?
We know yours is a weird fanatasy world where animals turn into marsupials because having a long way to go from the Ark to Australia and South America it helped having a pocket to carry their babies in, but frankly I don't see knowledge of pre-Flood geography being especially prevalant post-Flood.

Hex

Thanks, Robert. An expert explaination based in nothing except your furtive imagination.

Unfortunately, I just can't wrap my brain around the logic of your arguement.

:wave:

- Hex

Malintent

why not? doesn't it say that those attributes are there in the same source that claims its existence in the first place.

yes. I know a little bit about dog breading. I also am a reasonable enough individual to accept that a man, holding a bloody knife, standing over a dead and bloody body, telling me that he killed him, is a murderer, despite there being any physical evidence that he actually drove the knife into the poor man. Only his word and the circumstantial evidence of the blood and the knife.
yup.. words and paper. Words that if you understand the meaning of, you can verify the conclusions yourself by repeating the experiments, making your OWN observations, and testing to see if your conclusions are the same as the individual that wrote those words in the first place.

I believe you said something about not finding flaming swords and angels in this alleged Edan place? Why is it not repeatable? Oh yea.. cause its bullshit.
When I was a kid, computers looked different then they do today.
When I was a kid, Bibles looked different then they do today.
When I was a kid, atoms looked different then they do today.

This is the virtue of science. It is honest. This is what we know TODAY. Tomorrow we will know more. We have more knowledge about dinos and are able to model their appearance more accurately now. Perfectly? prolly not. yet.
so we agree that the bible is by no means intended to be a historical record? Or is a historical record and not the word of god? which?