Ed

Yes, I have seen the book. He favors a local flood, rather than being global. I think it was probably global but there is a possibility he could be correct.

[b] No, see my post about R.E. Lee above and also the generations described occuring after the flood in Genesis 10 are rather indefinite.

Ed

No, because the style is much more realistic and not so fantastical as the mythological versions of the flood story.

Ed

Its called educating yourself.

Quote:

LP on Revelation 7 and the angels holding back the winds; Ed: While I am not sure exactly what verse you are referring to, the purpose of Revelation was not to teach meteorology. God had greater purposes in mind. lp: Where is the disclaimer to that effect in that book?

It is rather obvious from the context.

Quote:

lp: The only "geologists" who maintain that the Grand Canyon's sediments were formed by a single flood are the sort who sign statements asserting in advance that they believe the literal truth of the Bible. It has been apparent for two centuries that the Earth's sedimentary rocks have a very complicated history -- apparent before Charles Darwin was born. Ed: Mainstream geologists are required to adhere to an unwritten assent to the fatally flawed philosophy of Naturalism. lp: How is that the case, Ed? And how is it "fatally flawed"?

Any hint of some supernatural event immediately throws you out of the academic "club". Naturalism has no rational basis for believing that what we observe is what is really there, ie subject-object correlation.

Quote:

lp: And Ed, what would cause you to reject Flood Geology?

If I could be convinced by the biblical data that the flood was local.


[b] [quote]
Ed on time travel:
No, that is a logical impossibility, that is one of the problems with time travel.
lp: How is that so?
Ed:
Because then you would both be and not be, which violates the law of non-contradiction.

Quote:

lp: That's totally absurd, Ed. I don't see how that follows.

Because if you back into the past before you were born then you would both be and not be.

Quote:

LP: (I lost patience when it came to the question of the Midianite Comfort Women.) Ed: Why? lp: Because I don't have superhuman endurance; also, I have serious problems with anyone who insists on defending that atrocity.

While it may offend our Christ influenced modern western society it hardly qualifies as an atrocity when understood in its historical context.

Quote:

Ed: ... The bible is made up of several different types of literature, so it depends on what type of literature the text you are looking at is. The Book of Revelation is apocalyptic which is almost all symbolic, the gospels are written as historical narrative so almost none of it is symbolic, and etc. lp: Where in the Bible does it say: "Historical narrative begins here" and "Apocalyptic literature begins here"?

It is determined by the language, grammar, and historical context.

[b] Who would you rather have write your biography, your family and friends who know you best or some stranger whom you have never met?

lpetrich

And how did you figure that out, Ed? Be specific; give details.

Not to me. If one insists that Noah's Flood is literal history, why not the angel-controlled winds and the Earth's four-cornered shape.

And how is that supposed to be happening?

What's "subject-object correlation"? I don't understand your statement.

That, and only that?

That's no contradiction. Consider a related case, that of visiting yourself when you were a little kid. Your doing so means that your personal timeline has reversed direction for a part of your life, meaning that there is a "young you" and an "old you" side by side.

WHAT "historical context"? The Bible doesn't point out which parts are valid for all time and which parts are not.

If the stranger was a good reporter, I would not object.

Oolon Colluphid

Aha! Got it! I've slipped on the Ring of Power, and am now quite invisible! That explains it!

Oolon the not-getting-his-questions-answered

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Ed:

Decisions about what parts of the Bible are "allegorical" are based on one criterion, and one criterion only. Something becomes "allegorical" when scientists, historians or archaeologists successfully demonstrate that yet another part of the Bible is false.

When this happens, Christian scholars look for some sort of distinguishing feature of the prose, which they then insist is a sign of an "allegorical style".

According to many modern Christians, the Genesis creation story and the Noachian Flood are both allegorical. The prose style "clearly indicates this".

Ed

Hello Rufus. The size and shape of the cranium, the size and shape of the temple bone, and the amount of protrusion of the jaw.

Ed

I am referring to a multiple step experiment.

Ed

See my post to Rufus. I think things are a little fuzzy with KNM-ER-1813 because a big chunk of the skull is missing (see the blue in your photo) and also according to the site you mentioned it was distorted during the fossilization process.

Quote:

OC: On the other hand, B and C are Australopithecus africanus. Here are some images comparing A africanus to chimps and gorillas: Sure they’re apes. Evolution solves this simply, by pointing out that we are too. So what are your criteria for saying which is ape and which human? I assume you’re sure they’re separate ‘kinds’. Surely we, as the pinnacle of creation, shouldn’t be hard to distinguish, should we?

As I told rufus, cranium size and shape, size and shape of the jaws among other things, not being an anthropologist I dont know all the criteria. But generally any fossil classified in the genus Homo, I consider human. I dont consider us apes.
We share some similarities because we both have the same designer.

Quote:

OC: “The molecules to man transition”? “The molecules to man transition”?? That’s three and a half thousand million years of transition you’re talking about there pal. Do please tell us some of these books. Did any of them mention <a href="http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/devo-index.html" target="_blank">Acanthostega, Elginerpeton, Hynerpeton, Ichthyostega Metaxygnathus, etc etc</a>, or the <a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm" target="_blank">Synapsida</a>, for instance?

It was back in college when I read them which was over 15 years ago, I cant remember the titles right now, I will try to refresh my memory. Some of them did include those species.

Quote:

OC: And just out of curiosity, just what variety of biologist are you? You’re the one mentioning it as if it gives you some sort of expertise, so let’s see what field you work in.

A wildlife biologist.

[b] I believe it was global but I dont think the entire fossil record was produced by it. Most Land animals survived it on the ark. Others such as insects probably lived on floating mats of vegetation.

RufusAtticus

Can you provide a little more detail? As in what types of shapes and sizes were you looking for, etc.?

Thanx.

-RvFvS