In the Beginning...

[onejayhawk]

There's an exacting description of Noah's Ark in the Bible, but that's hardly evidence that it existed.

What? Those chunks of wood far up on a mountain in Turkey aren't the ark? Then what are they? Don't say chunks of wood. That's cheating.

There is also an exacting description of an air or spacecraft. but we have already had that discussion.

J

 

[Arakhor]

Maybe not:

Well, that's a lot of numbers, but then you find coincidences in anything if you look hard enough. The Egyptians were master builders who enjoyed mathematics, astronomy, literature and other great arts, so some of that is to be expected. The rest looks like the stuff you'd find in Ancient Aliens, because of course primitive man couldn't possibly do anything without the assistance of modern or future tech.

What? Those chunks of wood far up on a mountain in Turkey aren't the ark? Then what are they? Don't say chunks of wood. That's cheating.

From a brief web-search, Answers in Genesis (the noted creationist site) doesn't seem to share your confidence in the wood's origin. Given that the Ark story would require literal deus ex machina to unfold in the first place, if you want to believe that the Ark is still up there up somewhere, that's entirely your prerogative.

 

[onejayhawk]

Exactly. We are dealing with things that are fringe even in their native community. Truth is often stranger than imagination.

J

 

[Berzerker]

I think not. Volcanism produces fire and brimstone. This was common enough. No reason to look further.

Thats one of the options researchers have considered, another is an airburst. But according to the Bible the destruction could have been delayed or avoided. And Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt/vapor may refer to the image of her outline on a rock she was standing near when incinerated. Perhaps she fell behind or did turn back to watch and the others entered a cave and saw her vaporized.

I'm getting the impression some people treat Genesis like it contains some kind of scientific explanation of the universe. Unfortunately, Genesis (nor any other Bible book), does nothing of the sort. The Bible is not a science book. In fact, it shows remarkable little interest in such science as there was at the time of writing. In short, the Bible is not interested in science. It is interested in getting across a message.

It isn't talking about the universe, just the dry land and its sky...and of course Heaven, the hammered bracelet. Many myths claim Heaven and Earth were separated by God, the chronology in Genesis shows from Tehom came Heaven and then the dry land with its closer sun ruling the day. That would be the proper sequence if the Earth was pushed here following a collision at the asteroid belt.

Oh, and Berzerker, scientists do not believe planets around distant stars 'migrated inward from the snow line'. In fact, beyond knowing that those planets are there, science knows little more about them. So stop making stuff up.

They're finding gas giants in close orbits and their explanation is these planets formed further out beyond the snow line and migrated inward.

http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-found-a-gas-giant-orbiting-surprisingly-clo-1701634190

Yes, we know you believe this, but we haven't seen any evidence unfortunately. (There no more 'zircons' then there are 'golds', by the way.)

Trace elements in the oldest zircons from Australia's Jack Hills range suggest they came from water-rich, granite-like rocks such as granodiorite or tonalite, other studies have reported. That means Earth cooled quickly enough for surface water and continental-type rocks just 100 million years after the moon impact, the massive collision that formed the Earth-moon system.

http://www.livescience.com/43584-earth-oldest-rock-jack-hills-zircon.html

Atmosphere does not constitute 'building material'; it's something a planet may have after it's formed. Certainly not before.

How exactly does a planet form in the presence of volatile elements without incorporating them into the growing planet? You're changing the subject, I didn't mention the atmosphere, of course atmospheres form after planets. Volatile elements dont need a planet or an atmosphere to be volatile elements.

The outer gas giants are mostly atmosphere. Arguing all that gas isn't building material is both illogical and misses the point - those gas giants couldn't have formed closer to the sun because the solar wind would have blown their gas further out.

If they formed inside the snow line like Earth supposedly did, they'd be small rocky planets with fewer volatile elements. Thats why researchers keep trying to import our water from the snow line where the asteroid belt separated the water above (beyond) from the water below (our water).

No, I did not argue that at all. And no, the moon is not evidence of 'a debris trail'.

You said a major collision would not produce a debris trail and the Moon is evidence a debris trail formed around the Earth following the lunar cataclysm.

In the sense of afterlife, yes. But we weren't discussing heaven in the sense of afterlife, were we.

No, we weren't... So why are you talking about it?

Your guess is as good as mine. We have no evidence to support it.

They interpret Heaven and Earth's sky with its lights to mean the universe

That's for you to explain, isn't it. It's not part of my belief system that óur oldest rocks formed in water'.

I already explained it, this world formed at the snow line surrounded by water vapor/ice. We had an ocean before the lunar cataclysm and afterward, water covered forming rock and the zircons they housed.

Thats why we have so much trouble finding rock that didn't form under water. We dont find that rock until plate tectonics was building continents around the late heavy bombardment.

I asked for evidence of any sort to support this assertion, not for you to simply repeat it in slightly different words.

Evidence other than the Bible?

 

[Agent327]

The Pyramid of Menkaure, the Pyramid of Khafre and the Great Pyramid of Khufu are precisely aligned with the Constellation of Orion.

Not really. A bit further on it is mentioned that the stars aren't actually fixed in locu, so this would be rather coincidental - if it were true. But all three of the great pyramids weren't constructed simultaneously, nor according to a pre-designed plan.

The coffer was made out of a block of solid granite. This would have required bronze saws 8-9 ft. long set with teeth of sapphires. Hollowing out of the interior would require tubular drills of the same material applied with a tremendous vertical force.
Microscopic analysis of the coffer reveals that it was made with a fixed point drill that used hard jewel bits and a drilling force of 2 tons.

Doubtful conclusion.

Odd that with all that detailed information there is no mention of the absence of slaves in the construction of the pyramids.

Thats one of the options researchers have considered, another is an airburst. But according to the Bible the destruction could have been delayed or avoided. And Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt/vapor may refer to the image of her outline on a rock she was standing near when incinerated. Perhaps she fell behind or did turn back to watch and the others entered a cave and saw her vaporized.

Or perhaps the whole story isn't historical at all. Which seems the more probable conclusion, with people turning into salt.

It isn't talking about the universe, just the dry land and its sky...and of course Heaven, the hammered bracelet. Many myths claim Heaven and Earth were separated by God, the chronology in Genesis shows from Tehom came Heaven and then the dry land with its closer sun ruling the day. That would be the proper sequence if the Earth was pushed here following a collision at the asteroid belt.

I'm sure. But that isn't what Genesis is about at all. You see, it's a creation myth.

They're finding gas giants in close orbits and their explanation is these planets formed further out beyond the snow line and migrated inward.

No, they're theorizing. In reality they don't know why these gas giants are 'so close' to their star.

Trace elements in the oldest zircons from Australia's Jack Hills range suggest they came from water-rich, granite-like rocks such as granodiorite or tonalite, other studies have reported. That means Earth cooled quickly enough for surface water and continental-type rocks just 100 million years after the moon impact, the massive collision that formed the Earth-moon system.

That might be one explanation, yes.

How exactly does a planet form in the presence of volatile elements without incorporating them into the growing planet? You're changing the subject, I didn't mention the atmosphere, of course atmospheres form after planets. Volatile elements dont need a planet or an atmosphere to be volatile elements.

The outer gas giants are mostly atmosphere. Arguing all that gas isn't building material is both illogical and misses the point - those gas giants couldn't have formed closer to the sun because the solar wind would have blown their gas further out.

I just mentioned that, yes. Also, we can only assume the gas giants consist 'mostly of atmosphere', because we can't actually observe through those atmospheres.

You said a major collision would not produce a debris trail and the Moon is evidence a debris trail formed around the Earth following the lunar cataclysm.

No, I did not. I pointed out that a major collision does not cause a single debris trail.

No, we weren't... So why are you talking about it?

I responded to your mention of heaven in that context.

They interpret Heaven and Earth's sky with its lights to mean the universe

Which, basically, it does.

I already explained it, this world formed at the snow line surrounded by water vapor/ice. We had an ocean before the lunar cataclysm and afterward, water covered forming rock and the zircons they housed.

Thats why we have so much trouble finding rock that didn't form under water. We dont find that rock until plate tectonics was building continents around the late heavy bombardment.

Well, that's one explanation. Another might simply be plate tectonics. It shoves rocks and other material in and out of Earth's upper crust constantly.

Evidence other than the Bible?

Preferably. Preferably a source that doesn't claim people lived hundreds, nay thousands of years. A reliable source, as it were. But barring that, basically any source will do.

 

[Arakhor]

Evidence other than the Bible?

Strangely enough, yes. If you are going to assert that the story of Sodom, Gomorrah and Lot was (a) real, (b) preventable or (c) anthropogenic, you're going to need to do a lot more than just quoting the story itself.

 

[onejayhawk]

That area was covered by an eruption which included a geyser of molten salts. There are still barren wastes. Soluble salts have washed away leaving the insoluble salts, often in odd stalagmite-like figures. Supposedly, one of them is Lot's wife. Tours are available. The furnace in Daniel is an underground natural gas fire which is part of the northern Iraq oil fields. It has been burning for thousands of years.

There are sometimes literal meanings to figurative-seeming language.

J

 

[Arakhor]

If it was a real event, that is certainly a plausible explanation. It doesn't square with 'preventable' or 'anthropogenic' though.

 

[onejayhawk]

If it was a real event, that is certainly a plausible explanation. It doesn't square with 'preventable' or 'anthropogenic' though.

Agreed. If someone were to pass through the field during the eruption, for example, it would have required divine intervention.

That said, the location of an eruption is not fixed. The blow can happen anywhere the pressure is high and the crust is weak. In this case, it is an historical fact that it erupted near a city. The same eruption could have happened miles away if pressures had been slightly different.

It all comes back to the necessity of faith. You can look at the science and say something is impossible. Change the background a bit and it becomes plausible. There is a wasteland filled with salt mounds. Inside are human remains. Was one of them one a specific person that did a stated thing?

A man was executed. The death was certified by puncturing the heart with a spear. It was said that after more than two days dead, he came back to life. The situation was investigated to the limit of available skill and not disproven. While not well cross-documented, fragmentary references exist from several other sources. Is it an historical fact? Is it the resurrection of Christ? It is possible to answer yes to the first and no to the second.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Evidence other than the Bible?

Preferably. Preferably a source that doesn't claim people lived hundreds, nay thousands of years. A reliable source, as it were. But barring that, basically any source will do.

This.

Strangely enough, yes. If you are going to assert that the story of Sodom, Gomorrah and Lot was (a) real, (b) preventable or (c) anthropogenic, you're going to need to do a lot more than just quoting the story itself.

And this...

One of my favourite scriptures in the bible is Second Timothy 3:16:

Spoiler :

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

because it perfectly captures the mindset of fundamentalists, and why its usually pointless to debate them about the bible. They literally believe that the Bible can be used as a source to prove that the Bible is correct and they literally can't comprehend that anyone would see any problem with that.

Fundamentalist: XYZ claim in the Bible is true!
Other guy: How do you know?
Fundamentalist: Because it's in the Bible!
Other guy: Yes, but what is your source for the truth of that claim?
Fundamentalist: Read 2 Timothy 3:16, it clearly says that the Bible comes from God, and is therefore true in every respect.
Other guy: You can't use the Bible as your source for establishing the truth of something in the Bible... that doesn't make any sense.
Fundamentalist: *confused expression* I ... don't understand what you mean...it's... the Bible...

 

[El_Machinae]

.... I'm only perusing the thread. Are people actually discussing Sodom and Gomorah as if it was a real event?

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's in the bible

 

[Arakhor]

Frankly, that's more believable than suggesting it was caused by a nuclear war 4000 years ago. Then again, Elvis being alive and well is also more believable, but still.

 

[Berzerker]

Strangely enough, yes. If you are going to assert that the story of Sodom, Gomorrah and Lot was (a) real, (b) preventable or (c) anthropogenic, you're going to need to do a lot more than just quoting the story itself.

I said it was preventable according to the Bible but I cant quote the Bible to show it was preventable according to the Bible?

 

[Arakhor]

What about the nuclear weapons (or other WMDs) you mentioned twice? Don't make preposterous claims and then not even try to back them up.

 

[trader/warrior]

Trace elements in the oldest zircons from Australia's Jack Hills range suggest they came from water-rich, granite-like rocks such as granodiorite or tonalite, other studies have reported. That means Earth cooled quickly enough for surface water and continental-type rocks just 100 million years after the moon impact, the massive collision that formed the Earth-moon system.

http://www.livescience.com/43584-ear...ls-zircon.html

So these zircons have been preserved precisely because of their ability to survive through cycles of going into the deep crust of the earth and back up through extreme conditions over billions of years. By their very composition they were obviously not the first rocks. The generally accepted science still says that most of our current water came from the late heavy bombardment half a billion years later, but there is no reason to say that there would have been no water before it, and for rocks to form earlier, which it obviously did only to go through the tectonic cycle and leave little to no remains (I mean there would obviously have been rocks before even the impact that created the moon, at least I don't believe it was all just a giant ball of lava, reading wiki it seems for some time scientists did believe it was actually a giant ball of lava based on dating of rocks but planetary theory suggests it would solidify much quicker). These zircons say nothing much about the overall composition of the entire surface at this time, other than that there was some water, which is not surprising at all since it's pretty much all over the solar system in some amounts, even if we probably needed a lot more to form the oceans we have today (which probably came from a migration of neptune or other gas giants flinging in materials from outside the "snow line" as you call it in the LHB according to current theory AFAIK).

 

[Agent327]

That area was covered by an eruption which included a geyser of molten salts. There are still barren wastes. Soluble salts have washed away leaving the insoluble salts, often in odd stalagmite-like figures. Supposedly, one of them is Lot's wife. Tours are available. The furnace in Daniel is an underground natural gas fire which is part of the northern Iraq oil fields. It has been burning for thousands of years.

There are sometimes literal meanings to figurative-seeming language.

Quite. But the fact that an area 'was covered by an eruption which included a geyser of molten salts' doesn't actually mean that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (location unknown) actually took place by the hand of God. Nor does the fact that there is 'an underground natural gas fire which is part of the northern Iraq oil fields' mean that the furnace in Daniel is real. (What was Daniel doing in northern Iraq, by the way?) Similarly, the findings of wood remains on top on Mt Ararat doesn't mean that the fantastic flood story with Noah was in any way real. (People who claim so must never had that story properly: it's full of fantastic elements.) Because that is what 'literal meaning' implies. The only way that Genesis was in any way real is in a mythical sense, not in any real sense. 'Any similarities with actual events or persons is entirely coincidental' might be a proper warning at the beginning of the Bible. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen any time soon. Because it is a Holy Book.

 

[timtofly]

Quite. But the fact that an area 'was covered by an eruption which included a geyser of molten salts' doesn't actually mean that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (location unknown) actually took place by the hand of God. Nor does the fact that there is 'an underground natural gas fire which is part of the northern Iraq oil fields' mean that the furnace in Daniel is real. (What was Daniel doing in northern Iraq, by the way?) Similarly, the findings of wood remains on top on Mt Ararat doesn't mean that the fantastic flood story with Noah was in any way real. (People who claim so must never had that story properly: it's full of fantastic elements.) Because that is what 'literal meaning' implies. The only way that Genesis was in any way real is in a mythical sense, not in any real sense. 'Any similarities with actual events or persons is entirely coincidental' might be a proper warning at the beginning of the Bible. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen any time soon. Because it is a Holy Book.

Or because when it was written, it was true and could be refuted. 3000 years later, people just expect it to be a myth. You would have to live during a time, when all the ice was melted, and the mountains were not pushed up like they are today, to understand. You, just don't believe that could happen at the same time, and in a short time span.

I don't have to make it out to be as Holy as you are trying to claim, because it was written in a time when skeptics worshipped more gods than can be counted with ten fingers. Yet people were trying to point out the absurdity in having gods. Now we are turning those stories into myths because they believed there was purpose and design in creation?

 

[onejayhawk]

Quite. But the fact that an area 'was covered by an eruption which included a geyser of molten salts' doesn't actually mean that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (location unknown) actually took place by the hand of God. Nor does the fact that there is 'an underground natural gas fire which is part of the northern Iraq oil fields' mean that the furnace in Daniel is real. (What was Daniel doing in northern Iraq, by the way?) Similarly, the findings of wood remains on top on Mt Ararat doesn't mean that the fantastic flood story with Noah was in any way real. (People who claim so must never had that story properly: it's full of fantastic elements.) Because that is what 'literal meaning' implies. The only way that Genesis was in any way real is in a mythical sense, not in any real sense. 'Any similarities with actual events or persons is entirely coincidental' might be a proper warning at the beginning of the Bible. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen any time soon. Because it is a Holy Book.

You contradict yourself multiple times in this.

It should be sufficient to say that Genesis is not real only "in the mythical sense." Similarities are not coincidental. There are literal references to real events. History. Things similar to what you state here were once said of the Iliad. Schliemann proved them wrong.

J

 

[Agent327]

You contradict yourself multiple times in this.

It should be sufficient to say that Genesis is not real only "in the mythical sense." Similarities are not coincidental. There are literal references to real events. History. Things similar to what you state here were once said of the Iliad. Schliemann proved them wrong.

Well, you see, that's the difference between the Iliad and Genesis. And it's all very fine to claim that 'I contradict yourself multiple times in this', but you fail to prove that. Similarities, by the way, are indeed coincidental, until proven otherwise. (Not that I mentioned any similarities.)

Or because when it was written, it was true and could be refuted. 3000 years later, people just expect it to be a myth.

That would not really be my argument. I would just expect people to read and conclude that such things could not possibly have happened in the way they are described. (Unless you believe in miracles and then there's not really anything to discuss.)

You would have to live during a time, when all the ice was melted, and the mountains were not pushed up like they are today, to understand. You, just don't believe that could happen at the same time, and in a short time span.

Well, I don't believe that because no short time span was involved. In geology, there's no such thing as a short time span, only a relatively short time span - relative to geology.

I don't have to make it out to be as Holy as you are trying to claim, because it was written in a time when skeptics worshipped more gods than can be counted with ten fingers. Yet people were trying to point out the absurdity in having gods. Now we are turning those stories into myths because they believed there was purpose and design in creation?

Some fuzzy logic there. The people who worshiped many gods weren't the skeptics. The people trying to point out the absurdity in having gods, again, weren't believers, they were (Greek) philosophers. The demyhtologization of ancient stories has nothing to do with ID; again, those are totally different phenomena. I can perfectly well believe in God without taking everything in the Bible as literally true. And I share this belief with the Roman-Catholic church, not the smallest of Christian denominations. I can even believe that the universe was created by God without resorting to literal beliefs. The pretense that the one has anything to do wit the other I would classify as either (misguided) fundamentalist or anti-intellectual belief. I personally belief in using my intellect rather than ignoring this Godgiven ability. I cannot fathom why intellectual capabilities, supposedly derived from God, should be ignored when it comes to religious texts. I can't fathom how such ignorance can help understand any text, religious or otherwise.

Lastly, it is not me who is claiming the Bible is a Holy Book. It's religion that does that. I only recognize the fact that it does.