Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 84

Thread: Was the flood of Genesis local to the continent of Australia?

  1. #71
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,955

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Inach Marbank View Post
    I didn't dig into your links much, but thanks for your reply, which I considered.
    You are more than welcome. Take your time, they can make for some interesting and enlightened reading.

    Would you say radiometric dating is complete nonsense, or do you think the methods of radiometric dating provide good enough information to make educated guesses?
    I believe that, due to the sometimes vast differences in results for the different samples and for different radiometric dating methods, the results are next to worthless. The only 'advantage' is for those that like to 'cherry pick' the result that best fits their particular theory, ignoring all others. There is obviously something in radiometric decay that we do not understand or have missed.

    A quick snippet of the wiki for the age of the earth:

    "Following the development of radiometric age-dating in the early 20th century, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[6]
    The oldest such minerals analyzed to date—small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia—are at least 4.404 billion years old."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

    Would you disagree that certain uranium rich rocks found the Jack Hills of Western Australia are 4.4 billion years old?
    Yes, I would disagree that certain uranium rich rocks are 4.4 billion years old.

    If the Yallourn formation rocks are at least 5 million years old, and at maximum 23 million years old, that is a very wide range between 4.4 billion years.

    Would you consider the ages of these rocks are reasonable assessments, but that the whole of the earth was formed well after these rocks were initially formed?
    No, I would not consider the ages as "reasonable assessments". When determining the age of the Yallourn formation, as with the samples from Jack Hills of Western Australia, the evidence is being interpreted with the 'slow and gradual' Uniformitarian a priori of 'millions and billions' of years. This a priori does not account or allow for catastrophic events, the evidence of which, I believe, is all around for those willing to look.

    Do you consider a day in Genesis to literally mean 1 period of 24 hours, and would you date the formation of Earth to something like only 6,000 years ago?
    Or do you consider there is room to interpret a day in Genesis to mean a much longer period?
    I believe the 'days' mentioned in Genesis 1, according to the context and hermeneutics, are meant as 24 hour days. I also believe that God, as described in the Scriptures, is capable of creating all that we see in six '24 hour' days as experienced here on Earth. In fact, He is capable of doing it in six seconds, if He chose to but He had a reason for the '24 hour days'. God is not restricted or constrained by the time dimension as we are. There is an interesting theory put forward by Dr Russell Humphreys in relation to the Creation Week and time dilation in his book, Starlight and Time. (Dr D Russell Humphreys is the physicist that accurately predicted the existence and strengths of the magnetic fields of various planets in our Solar System (link) much to the disbelief of the secular physicists, as I've mentioned elsewhere.)

    As for the formation of the Earth, I believe it was between 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. At the extreme, no more than 50,000 years ago but certainly not 4.4 billion years for a number of reasons.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

  2. #72
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,955

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John53 View Post
    If it's not intended as insult then can explain what the quote below is intended to be? It is at the very least wrong and could easily be interpreted as false witness. Unless you can come up with evidence that any evolutionist ever said a duck was a camel. Even taking it as an analogy it is still at the very least wrong and derogatory.
    Well, again, no insult intended. It was, as you say, an analogy and a twist on the very common analogy of "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck", implying one should assess the evidence and use common sense. The twist was "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably [insert whatever is the 'opposite' of a duck]". I chose 'camel' as it is totally different from a duck to imply a denial of what is plainly before you. While you and other posters say "appearances can be deceiving", this may be true in some instances but it is not a 'blanket' statement meaning that "all appearances are deceiving". I look at what appears to be an apple. On closer examination, it is an apple. I look at what appears to be a tree. On closer examination, it is a tree. It is only in a minority of instances that "appearances truly are deceptive" but not in every case, especially after closer examination of the evidence. Evos often, not always and not every Evo, go to great lengths, when fronted with such claims as "the appearance of design" or "the appearance of being young", to deny that which is obvious with the statement, "appearances can be deceiving" or similar as if it, in and of itself, disproves the claims of appearance. Again, while that statement may be true in some cases, I've yet to see an Evo give an adequate explanation for why something "that has the appearance of design" isn't actually designed without appealing to the a priori of ToE - circular reasoning. The same, in the case of Uluru, what is the explanation for the grains of feldspar having "the appearance of being young" without them actually 'being young' without the a priori of Uniformitarian 'slow and gradual. Again, circular reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Can you explain why, even after close examination of the evidence, why the conclusion that the evidence 'appears' to indicate is not accepted? Is there an alternate and better suited explanation (which, so far, is not the case for Uluru's arkose and feldspar)? Or is it due to an a priori that is opposed to such a conclusion that removes it from all consideration
    As I explained before, no I can't, I'm not a geologist and I would only be giving links to or cutting and pasting the work of others that is easily found by anyone with the internet. I wouldn't know an arkose or feldspar if it hit me in the head.
    Please, post links and/or cut'n'paste to your heart's content, we may both learn something. Just as long as you give the appropriate link and it does not require an a priori.

    I can only speak for myself, I have no presupposition of the age of Ayres Rock or the Olgas. First hand they looked ancient to me and 99.9% of the information I can find online puts it at about 600 million years.
    Are you sure you don't wish to apply the caveat "but appearances can be deceiving"?

    I have no reason to believe the geologists who determined that age have any reason to lie, perhaps they are mistaken but at this point I'm willing to accept their opinion while at the same time keeping an open mind if new evidence surfaces. On the other hand you have been less than honest with me at times and your eternal salvation depends on it being about 5,000 years old and I suspect that makes you very prejudiced.
    Once again, my eternal salvation is in no way affected by the age of Uluru, the Earth or Creation. So you would be wrong, it is a totally separate issue.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Once again, my eternal salvation is in no way affected by the age of Uluru, the Earth or Creation. So you would be wrong, it is a totally separate issue.
    So there are no consequences for your eternal soul if you reject those stories in Genesis as either fable, myth or legend - or perhaps a combination of all three?
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,087

    Default

    In other words, you think the consilience across the natural sciences which confirms that the Universe is in the order of 14 billion years old, and the Earth around 4 billion years is because they are all in error, and that their errors just happen to line up (or perhaps it's a conspiracy?); you think it so unlikely that natural forces could have generated the great diversity of life on this planet that it is more reasonable to think all life forms were created in a couple days 6,000 years ago, the first man being miraculously formed from a pile of dust (and where did that come from, the Earth being so new and all?), the first woman being miraculously formed from one of his ribs, that trees bore fruit which had the power to give immortality and knowledge of good and evil and that a beast (what did that "serpent" look like?) could speak and ended up being turned into a snake.

    (Creationists complain that the natural sciences deduce events which no one was around to observed so probably never did happen.
    Luckily the same complaint can't possibly be made about events described in Genesis because they were observed by God, which is how the Bible is able to describe them.
    And how do we know they were observed by God?
    Because they are in the Bible!
    And why should we think what's in the Bible is reliable?
    Because it's in the Bible!)
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Posts
    4,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Well, again, no insult intended.
    Let's be fair dinkum here, it may not have been intended as a direct insult to any one person but it was certainly chest beating... "those dumb evos can't tell a duck from a camel, I'm so clever and superior", is what you were going for.

    It was, as you say, an analogy and a twist on the very common analogy of "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck", implying one should assess the evidence and use common sense. The twist was "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably [insert whatever is the 'opposite' of a duck]". I chose 'camel' as it is totally different from a duck to imply a denial of what is plainly before you. While you and other posters say "appearances can be deceiving", this may be true in some instances but it is not a 'blanket' statement meaning that "all appearances are deceiving". I look at what appears to be an apple. On closer examination, it is an apple. I look at what appears to be a tree. On closer examination, it is a tree. It is only in a minority of instances that "appearances truly are deceptive" but not in every case, especially after closer examination of the evidence. Evos often, not always and not every Evo, go to great lengths, when fronted with such claims as "the appearance of design" or "the appearance of being young", to deny that which is obvious with the statement, "appearances can be deceiving" or similar as if it, in and of itself, disproves the claims of appearance. Again, while that statement may be true in some cases, I've yet to see an Evo give an adequate explanation for why something "that has the appearance of design" isn't actually designed without appealing to the a priori of ToE - circular reasoning. The same, in the case of Uluru, what is the explanation for the grains of feldspar having "the appearance of being young" without them actually 'being young' without the a priori of Uniformitarian 'slow and gradual. Again, circular reasoning.
    Well not the right thread for this but a topic I'm very interested in. You see intelligent design in life I see things that are thrown together in a haphazard fashion, functional but far from perfect. In fact it completely baffles me how anyone could look at a human (for example) and think the way our bodies fit together and work is intelligently designed (perfect example of appearances being subjective). Once again your eternal salvation depends on intelligent design so I consider your opinion to be highly prejudiced.

    Please, post links and/or cut'n'paste to your heart's content, we may both learn something. Just as long as you give the appropriate link and it does not require an a priori.
    I have no idea what you would consider a "priori" to be. I would consider anything from AIG or ICR to be a priori because of the tenant they are required to adhere to. I'm sure your standards are different.

    Are you sure you don't wish to apply the caveat "but appearances can be deceiving"?
    Sure, because they are. Learnt that at an early age when I observed my mother congratulate a woman who appeared to be pregnant (she wasn't).

    Once again, my eternal salvation is in no way affected by the age of Uluru, the Earth or Creation. So you would be wrong, it is a totally separate issue.
    We both know that not to be true. (At least that's the way it appears to me.)
    And the officer said, "better get a lawyer son, better get a real good one".

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    woonsocket ri
    Posts
    3,918
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Inach Marbank View Post
    Is it as ridiculous as believing around 4000 years ago the ENTIRE land on earth was 1 giant continent, Pangaea, which became TOTALLY enveloped in water, and then split up into 7 continents in a couple thousand years or so?
    That's what you believe, right?
    Hey, here's another ridiculous biblical geographical puzzler.
    Where are the 4 corners of Earth?
    The most common answer I have read to this is, Everywhere.
    Gee. That explains so much...
    A miracle is something God does that can not be duplicated by nature or human effort or something that can be duplicated but not with the timing needed to bring the same result.
    The Flood was a miracle of the first order, the splitting of the continents of the second order.
    I believe this by faith alone.
    As with the tidbit in Australia that seems to affirm one tidbit of the Flood story, there are tidbits to affirm the geology story. I don't think either is satisfactory to a neutral observer to make a conclusion, but there are no neutral observers.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5555 View Post
    A miracle is something God does that can not be duplicated by nature or human effort or something that can be duplicated but not with the timing needed to bring the same result.
    The Flood was a miracle of the first order, the splitting of the continents of the second order.
    I believe this by faith alone.
    As with the tidbit in Australia that seems to affirm one tidbit of the Flood story, there are tidbits to affirm the geology story. I don't think either is satisfactory to a neutral observer to make a conclusion, but there are no neutral observers.
    There was no flood.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,087

    Default

    The only observers who aren't neutral are Biblical literalists.
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    woonsocket ri
    Posts
    3,918
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    The only observers who aren't neutral are Biblical literalists.
    Wrong! All anti-Bible literalists (and I think most anti-Bible figurativists) are far from neutral. Why would they search and post daily in a forum where people of some faith discuss such matters just to offend a few?
    They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I despise those who say that but some of those who do so are insane so a half-right statement entitles the speaker to further consideration. in any case.
    The above statement: There was no flood" is a statement of faith based on insufficient evidence but clearly prompted by malice, as are all statements of faith presented here.

    My purpose in this thread is simple and indisputable:
    ANY EFFORT TO PRESENT THE FLOOD AS LOCAL ANYWHERE IS ANTI-BIBLICAL LITERAL.
    ANY EFFORT TO SEE AUSTRALIA OR ANY MODERN COUNTRY IN THE BIBLE IS POINTLESS IF NOT WRONG.
    WHATEVER STRANGE THING IN AUSTRALIA SUGGESTS A LOCAL FLOOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENESIS>

    With that out of the way there are some loose ends.
    Plate tectonics:
    If an expert on the subject could assure me for example that Newfoundland is 5 miles further from Portugal than 500 years ago, I'd be inclined not to doubt, but that does not force me to believe it was 30 miles closer 3000 years ago.
    What evidence besides multiplication would justify that belief?

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5555;1297025[QUOTE
    ]Wrong! All anti-Bible literalists (and I think most anti-Bible figurativists) are far from neutral. Why would they search and post daily in a forum where people of some faith discuss such matters just to offend a few?
    Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a "representative sample"?
    How might it apply here?

    They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
    Yes, they also say, "If at first you do not succeed, quit, for lo, it is crazy to try again."




    I despise those who say that but some of those who do so are insane so a half-right statement entitles the speaker to further consideration
    Ah so, self loathing.



    . in any case.
    The above statement: There was no flood" is a statement of faith based on insufficient evidence but clearly prompted by malice, as are all statements of faith presented here.

    You sure can concoct wild conclusions based on nothing but your own
    mind, such as it is.

    Now, I do not doubt that you, personally, suffer grievously from a lack of info.
    You clearly dont know squat about geology. Those who do, tho, are aware of such things as that there was no flood.


    All your "statements of faith" are prompted by malice? You've a prob, bro, if so.

    My purpose in this thread is simple and indisputable:
    ANY EFFORT TO PRESENT THE FLOOD AS LOCAL ANYWHERE IS ANTI-BIBLICAL LITERAL.
    ANY EFFORT TO SEE AUSTRALIA OR ANY MODERN COUNTRY IN THE BIBLE IS POINTLESS IF NOT WRONG.
    WHATEVER STRANGE THING IN AUSTRALIA SUGGESTS A LOCAL FLOOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENESIS>
    Pretty much every place has had local floods. A great deal of Australia is
    made up of rock of marine origin.

    I will leave those who will to dispute your indisputable bible-readin'.


    With that out of the way there are some loose ends.
    Plate tectonics:
    If an expert on the subject could assure me for example that Newfoundland is 5 miles further from Portugal than 500 years ago, I'd be inclined not to doubt, but that does not force me to believe it was 30 miles closer 3000 years ago.
    What evidence besides multiplication would justify that belief

    Not that your numbers are correct, but the rate of seafloor spreading
    and other aspects of plate tectonics is well evidenced. One can, for example,
    see how wide the Atlanatic was 20 million years ago by dating the rock
    and measuring how far it is from the present mid ocean rift.

    This stuff takes work but it is conceptually simple.

    Hint: Grades are directly proportional to study.

    "Force you to believe"? weird.


    What, btw, makes you as a presumptive Christian, comfortable is
    falsely accusing me of "malice"? How do you rationalize that?

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •