Jump to content

Continued Discussion Rayskidude On Spong


Recommended Posts

So you're saying true scholars should start with the presumption they're the only ones right and try to make the evidence fit their conclusions rather than working from the evidence to discover the conclusion? In other words, only fundamentalist scholars with "true" faith are trust worthy and everyone else is a liar?

 

What I'm saying is that the JEPD theory has come under disrepute for a number of reasons even, as you note - the positing of even more and more authors & redactors.

 

But recent secular scholarship has shown that taking the OT as delivered by the ancient Jews, and received by later Jews and the Church - we see that the OT historicity, message, theology, etc present a remarkable whole >> which cannot be explained by the JEPD methodology. But the data indicate that the OT has a unity that must have been driven by Yahweh, the Creator/Redeemer God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What scholars other than fundamentalists Christians agree that the OT is a unified whole? What evidence do you have that it's a unified whole? Have you even read the first two chapters of Genesis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then what are you saying? And the Bible does not say the high mountain ranges existed prior to the Flood - in fact many Creationists would say that the plate tectonics that formed the Rockies, Andes, Himalayas, etc were formed in Gen 10:25, four generations after Noah's return to land. Peleg was named as the land was split in his lifetime - possibly the split of Pangaea (?) into the seven continents.

That's just because Creationists are not burdened with things like requirements for their beliefs to be rationally possible or supported by the slightest shred of evidence. Here's an article about the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. The Chile earthquake (8.8 magnitude--very big) was caused by tectonic plates sliding past each other only maybe 45 feet. Yet you expect to build mountains thousands of feet high in a matter of years? The earthquakes resulting would destroy all life on the planet. Not to mention the amount of heat released into the oceans from vast stretches of newly exposed magma as the continents surfed to their modern positions at a breakneck clip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What scholars other than fundamentalists Christians agree that the OT is a unified whole? What evidence do you have that it's a unified whole? Have you even read the first two chapters of Genesis?

 

Yes - multiple times - and as I've said before - any thots of contradictions are infereences forced on the text.

 

But - gotta go. Good Friday Tenebrae service.

 

I sincerely pray for a blessed Good Friday and joyous Resurrection Sunday for all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What scholars other than fundamentalists Christians agree that the OT is a unified whole? What evidence do you have that it's a unified whole? Have you even read the first two chapters of Genesis?

I've been reading up on the JEPD "Documentary Hypothesis" and it is as fascinating as I remembered it from years ago.

 

The style, the vocabulary, and even the theology are different among the several sources. It makes sense of the weird repetitions, different names for God, the focus on the different kingdoms of Israel, and all that annoying Priestly material that is just ridiculous and nauseating at the same time.

 

Someone, perhaps during the Babylonian captivity or under the influence of the Persians, took all of the material and tried to put it all together into a coherent narrative - succeeding in some respects despite the inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

So there's your "unified narrative." The last redactor. But the vast majority of people who have an inkling of honesty still see different human authors that have contributed different materials.

 

Every verse or 1/2 verse has some characteristic that fits one of the JEPD descriptions, but "modern criticism" from the point of the apologist attempts to ignore the obvious differences in sources. They don't really care. They never did, so when people stopped talking about how different authors wrote different sections, they got to work trying to show that this method of authorship is just "dynamic" whatever that means other than different people wrote at different times for different purposes.

 

Here's a quote from someone who really knows about the different authors and criteria:

 

This illustrates that even in what seems like a single unified passage, there may be more than one voice speaking with more than one point of concern and emphasis. This does not lessen the credibility of Scripture in any way, unless, of course, that credibility is tied to traditional affirmations about who wrote what.

 

Understanding the dynamic nature of the biblical text allows us to see the work of God as dynamic in this community of faith as they worked throughout history to come to terms with God’s revelation of himself and put that into practice in their lives.

 

So they just call it "dynamic" and then turn the focus from the different authors to "God as dynamic."

 

Gee, that sounds like a unified Book, doesn't it?

 

Until you go back and see how it is really put together, and then you see "Man as dynamic."

 

But then, some have decided that, while no one was looking, they would do a real apologist job and show the dublets as a literary device (despite sylistic differences), every anachronism as a minor scribal error or misunderstanding of some other language, and every other evidence of names and places in different sections of text (together with style and everything else) and just say, "There is no absolute consensus, it's really complicated, there isn't any physical evidence of the texts before their latest form, and it's based on subjective impressions rather than science."

 

The conclusion of these apologists? "The Pentateuch, authored by Moses, is totally reliable and trustworthy."

 

I kid you not.

 

It is so reminiscent of how apologists deal with anything else they find uncomfortable. Creation, biblical horrors, inconsistencies etc. Confuse, confound, and deny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading up on the JEPD and it is as fascinating as I remembered it from years ago.

 

The style, the vocabulary, and even the theology are different among the several sources. It makes sense of the weird repetitions, different names for God, the focus on the different kingdoms of Israel, and all that annoying Priestly material that is just ridiculous and nauseating at the same time.

 

Someone, perhaps during the Babylonian captivity or under the influence of the Persians, took all of the material and tried to put it all together into a coherent narrative - succeeding in some respects despite the inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

So there's your "unified narrative." The last redactor. But the vast majority of people who have an inkling of honesty still see different human authors that have contributed different materials.

 

Please remember - this is all conjecture, based ion subjective judgements & interpretations inferred from Scripture. The JEPD model is an unproven theory - which has come under deserved criticism for the past 30 years.

 

And you think the variety of names for God must indicate separate authors??? How about the varied and abundant attributes which God's people have experienced in a wide variety of circumstances - which have moved them to emphasize different truths about God in how they address Him?

 

Basically - liberal scholarship is lazy, they take the easy route. Ex >> different name for God = different author, easy, done, complete, over. Rather than do the hard work of investigation and meditation, asking "Why would God's people, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, use a variety of names to address their God?"

 

How many names do you have for people close to you? DO you always address everyone you know in the exact same way? Do you not - depending on the circumsatnces - use a variety of (real, first, middle, last, pet, buddy, secret, etc) names? You know you do - and yet you want to rob others of the same freedom. And you want to call that "scholarship."

 

Do you not see the obvious contradiction in your position?

 

PLease visit "http://vintage.aomin.org/JEDP.html" to read a brief synopsis of and refutation of the Graff-Wellhuasen theory.

 

But then, some have decided that, while no one was looking, they would do a real apologist job and show the dublets as a literary device (despite sylistic differences), every anachronism as a minor scribal error or misunderstanding of some other language, and every other evidence of names and places in different sections of text (together with style and everything else) and just say, "There is no absolute consensus, it's really complicated, there isn't any physical evidence of the texts before their latest form, and it's based on subjective impressions rather than science."

 

All these supposed anachronisms, historical or geographical inconsistencies, people & places that can't be found, etc, etc etc - all these continue to be refuted by further study of extra-Biblical literature, historical studies, and archeological digs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dums_small.jpg

 

So, you're a satisfied customer of Dums. And now you've become a salesman with a personal testimony as to its effectiveness.

 

How are sales going in the current Obama-nomics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just because Creationists are not burdened with things like requirements for their beliefs to be rationally possible or supported by the slightest shred of evidence. Here's an article about the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. The Chile earthquake (8.8 magnitude--very big) was caused by tectonic plates sliding past each other only maybe 45 feet. Yet you expect to build mountains thousands of feet high in a matter of years? The earthquakes resulting would destroy all life on the planet. Not to mention the amount of heat released into the oceans from vast stretches of newly exposed magma as the continents surfed to their modern positions at a breakneck clip.

 

So people living in ancient Ohio would've died by the formation of the Rockies? And people in ancient Brazil would've perished as the Andes were built?

 

Where is your data - this is a faith statement.

 

And based on your statement - then do you insist that the mountains were formed before any life existed on Planet Earth? Or do you posit that the 'admitted' unlikely fortuitous combination of chemcals and a myriad of other parameters required for "spontaneous generation" of life - well, that occurred again (lucky for us, huh?) and life was once agin created.

 

You do realize that the Miller-Stanley experimant is no longer considered as viable evidence for the origin of life - as they got the pre-determined results they were looking for in the very design of the experiment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Basically - liberal scholarship is lazy, they take the easy route. Ex >> different name for God = different author, easy, done, complete, over. Rather than do the hard work of investigation and meditation, asking "Why would God's people, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, use a variety of names to address their God?"

 

How many names do you have for people close to you? DO you always address everyone you know in the exact same way? Do you not - depending on the circumsatnces - use a variety of (real, first, middle, last, pet, buddy, secret, etc) names? You know you do - and yet you want to rob others of the same freedom. And you want to call that "scholarship."

 

 

This is a gross over-simplification of the views of secular scholarship. Secular scholarship does not declare there are multiple authors behind the OT merely because the bible uses different names for God but rather they are different authors who believed in entirely different gods. For example, Spong brings up in the book the radically different personalities of these gods. In the Y document, Yahweh is portrayed with very humanlike attributes. Like Yahweh plants a garden, walks around in the garden, and calls for Adam when he can't find him, as if God was not omniscient. The Eliohm document on the other hand portrays a different version a god, a god who works through dreams and visions and uses divine symbolism to speak to the people. Furthermore, we have lots of historical evidence that El and Yahweh are not just different divine names for God but are two different gods entirely. Just look at this list of deities from the Canaanite pantheon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_pantheon#Pantheon Notice that two of the gods on the list are El and Yahweh, both gods which appear in the bible, here listed as two different deities in a religion that existed before Judaism and Christianity. Now please explain how this can be if the OT is a unified book and these are just different names for the same god? What evidence do you have backing up your claim that the OT is unified?
Link to post
Share on other sites

dums_small.jpg

 

:lmao: Love it!

 

 

Please remember - this is all conjecture, based ion subjective judgements & interpretations inferred from Scripture.

 

Webster's dictionary Ion: 1. an atom or group of atoms that carries a positive or negative electric charge as a result of having lost or gained one or more electrons. 2. a charged subatomic particle (as a free electron)

 

I do believe you are misusing the word "ion" in this sentence, Rayskidude. Even if you are using it as an abbreviation for ionic, it is still not quite accurate.

 

ionic (1): of, relating to, existing as, or characterized by ions <~ gases> <the ~ charge> 2. based on or functioning by means of ions.

 

ionic (2): of or relating to the ancient Greek architectural order distinguished esp. by fluted columns on bases and scroll volutes in its capitals 2. of or relating to Ionia or the Ionians.

 

ionic: a dialect of ancient Greek spoken esp. in Ionia and the Cyclades.

 

 

And Xians wonder why they do not make any sense to me. 1. they don't use words right- ie their vocabulary sucks 2. Their word order is generally confusing 3. They can't spell 4. And 1/2 the time they speak jibberish- they don't speak English right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just because Creationists are not burdened with things like requirements for their beliefs to be rationally possible or supported by the slightest shred of evidence. Here's an article about the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. The Chile earthquake (8.8 magnitude--very big) was caused by tectonic plates sliding past each other only maybe 45 feet. Yet you expect to build mountains thousands of feet high in a matter of years? The earthquakes resulting would destroy all life on the planet. Not to mention the amount of heat released into the oceans from vast stretches of newly exposed magma as the continents surfed to their modern positions at a breakneck clip.

 

So people living in ancient Ohio would've died by the formation of the Rockies? And people in ancient Brazil would've perished as the Andes were built?

 

Where is your data - this is a faith statement.

 

And based on your statement - then do you insist that the mountains were formed before any life existed on Planet Earth? Or do you posit that the 'admitted' unlikely fortuitous combination of chemcals and a myriad of other parameters required for "spontaneous generation" of life - well, that occurred again (lucky for us, huh?) and life was once agin created.

 

You do realize that the Miller-Stanley experimant is no longer considered as viable evidence for the origin of life - as they got the pre-determined results they were looking for in the very design of the experiment.

We have a live one! :lol:

 

Geologists, physicists, and biologists concur that humans were not around for these mountain building episodes, although if they had been so long ago they would have survived just fine. You appear to not understand the basis for orogeny. Mountains grow over very long periods of time, hundreds of thousands to millions of years. In your scenario this mountain building would be catastrophic for all life on earth, in reality mountain building is the result of typical tectonic activity, and it takes place over very long periods of time.

 

Regarding the data, there is so much of it that it would be impossible to answer that question. You might try a simple Google Scholar search for "orogeny". If you have something more specific in mind I'm sure you can come up with a book that will help, or find some papers that you can look up in your local college library.

 

You might consider that your being ignorant of the evidence does not mean that everyone is similarly ignorant, so while your statements on creationists notions of the origin of the Rockies may be a faith statement, someone else's take on it can be well reasoned and based upon sound evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just because Creationists are not burdened with things like requirements for their beliefs to be rationally possible or supported by the slightest shred of evidence. Here's an article about the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. The Chile earthquake (8.8 magnitude--very big) was caused by tectonic plates sliding past each other only maybe 45 feet. Yet you expect to build mountains thousands of feet high in a matter of years? The earthquakes resulting would destroy all life on the planet. Not to mention the amount of heat released into the oceans from vast stretches of newly exposed magma as the continents surfed to their modern positions at a breakneck clip.

 

So people living in ancient Ohio would've died by the formation of the Rockies? And people in ancient Brazil would've perished as the Andes were built?

 

Where is your data - this is a faith statement.

 

And based on your statement - then do you insist that the mountains were formed before any life existed on Planet Earth? Or do you posit that the 'admitted' unlikely fortuitous combination of chemcals and a myriad of other parameters required for "spontaneous generation" of life - well, that occurred again (lucky for us, huh?) and life was once agin created.

 

You do realize that the Miller-Stanley experimant is no longer considered as viable evidence for the origin of life - as they got the pre-determined results they were looking for in the very design of the experiment.

Your ignorance is Brilliant! It shines brightly and hot!

 

The Andes formed during the Cretaceous period that ended about 65 million years ago.

 

The Rocky Mountains were formed in three phases from 175 million years ago to 85 million years ago.

 

Man has been around for less than 10 million years (in any recognizable form).

 

And evidence? Plenty. Plate tectonics, fossils, radiometric dating, paleomagnetism (magnetism frozen in the rock at the time it formed), and many other interlocking scientific disciplines.

 

You have the faith, remember?

 

And perhaps you are speaking of the Miller–Urey experiment? The idea was to try and duplicate the conditions of the early earth before there was oxygen in the atmosphere. They found that amino acids were formed spontaneously. Current Models of abiogenesis have taken several theories and elaborated on them.

 

The point is that they are looking. Experimenting. Determining what conditions may have existed and how life might have begun. Your approach is to say, "Goddidit" and "Forgetit." You offer no experiments, no searching, nothing but turn out the lights of knowledge and sit in the darkness of ignorance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically - liberal scholarship is lazy, they take the easy route. Ex >> different name for God = different author, easy, done, complete, over. Rather than do the hard work of investigation and meditation, asking "Why would God's people, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, use a variety of names to address their God?"

 

Neon Genesis responded to your post regarding this issue, but I will take issue with your characterization of the scholarship.

 

YOU are making the simplistic assumptions. Neon pointed out that the character of the two gods is different, but I would add that the scholarship doesn't just involve god names or even the characters, but the style, grammar, vocabulary and every other means that we use today to distinguish particular writers.

 

IOW, the writers were different people. Maybe you knew that. I can't believe I'm arguing with an absolute mindless idiot, so perhaps I'm miscontruing your position.

 

Modern forensic studies are examining methods of identifying authors based on small passages, and these methods have also been successfully used to identify anonymous authors of books and articles.

 

Idiolect and uniqueness of encoding

The linguist approaches the problem of questioned authorship from the theoretical position that every native speaker has their own distinct and individual version of the language they speak and write, their own idiolect, and the assumption that this idiolect will manifest itself through distinctive and idiosyncratic choices in texts

 

These same methods work with biblical authors. They use the same methodology as the Graf-Wellhausen theory.

 

Professor Don Foster proved that writers leave in their works signs of their identity that are just as telling as fingerprints or DNA that may be left behind at a crime scene. If the identify of the person who left the fingerprints or DNA is not known, forensic experts could still determine that the same person was involved in crimes A and B if the same prints or DNA should be found at both scenes. If the fingerprints and DNA found at both scenes are different, this would give investigators reasonable cause to conclude that the crimes were committed by different persons. Literary analysis works the same way.

 

But understanding that would mean acknowledging "evidence" and that's against your religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, you're a satisfied customer of Dums. And now you've become a salesman with a personal testimony as to its effectiveness.

 

How are sales going in the current Obama-nomics?

 

You're the salesman here, and you don't know shit from Shinola.

 

Not that you're interested, but I didn't vote for Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold up a minute Ray!

We need to slam on the brakes here and back up a bit.

I WILL NOT be replying to any of your questions or talking about anything new, for two reasons.

 

First, you haven't answered the question I put to you, way back on January 26 - that's ten weeks ago. You asked for more time ("I will look at the data you offered - give me a few days. Thnx for your patience.") , but that was after your son's wedding and your problem with the error messages. With those events behind you now and with clear lines of communication between us, I see no reason why you can't make the answer to that question the next and sole topic of your next reply to me. Please do so.

 

Secondly, because I made the classic blunder of giving you too much leeway in this debate.

Doing that allowed you to avoid answering the question and to respond with questions, not answers. You then widened things out to include cavitation, channeled scablands, Mt. St. Helens and the roche limit. I freely admit that I made a mistake in taking your bait and posting replies to these off-topic areas. Off-topic, as in, not strictly dealing with the specific subject of my initial question about the canyon on Mars.

Well, this message is my correction of that error. Before anything else can be discussed, debate, introduced or linked to, I would really, really, really like you to answer the question put to you. Please do so.

 

[quote name='rayskidude' date='26 March 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1269639222' post='545729']

First things first, Ray!

 

Geological "anomalies", Ray?

Like this? http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood?

Or this? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood... ...ON MARS!!!

So Mars is 6,000 years old too, just like good ole Earth? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

BAA.

Was there a global Flood on Mars that rapidly and catastrophically laid down these nice, neat layered deposits of rock strata? If you compare like-with-like, there seems to have been.

BAA.

Look Ray, you can avoid replying about the Flood on Mars if you like - it's your call.

BAA.

SO what's the point - that similar rock formations on differnet planets had the same causation? OK - I can agree to that, in principle. Are you saying that a stream of water slowly cut the formation we see on Mars? Where is this water today? How much water have we detected on Mars?

Re: the Grand Canyon - is it rational to say that a river cut this formation over billions of years? Or would cavitation be a more plausable explanation? Look north to Utah and see where a very large ancient body of water was once held back by mountains - and yet aerial views expose a scablands similar to Washington's >> and it seems as though a large volume of water travelling at extremely high speeds could "dig out" the GC in a matter of months.

This was shown in AZ, when they released flood waters behind the Hoover Dam years ago, and they soon saw "red water" jetting out of the underground tunnels. Later analysis showed that the water had chewed thru the concrete walls into the surrounding rock by cavitation.

So cavitation vs uniformitarianism; I'll go with the cavitation model. Makes more sense and is consistent with what we have actually seen. Has anyone seen a river chisel out a canyon over even thousands of years? Have we seen this phenomenon with the Nile, Mississippi, Ganges, Yellow, Amazon or them big honking rivers in Russia?

But we've seen large amounts of rushing water hew out deep gorges on Mt St Helens in a couple of decades.

Also, re: age of solar system; from what you know about the Roche Limit, how long do you think the Earth-Moon binary system has existed?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ok then Ray, let's see if I can get a simple and straightforward answer out of you. I'll even re-state the initial question in more precise terms, so there can be no misunderstanding.

 

Using only YEC Geology please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hold up a minute Ray!

We need to slam on the brakes here and back up a bit.

I WILL NOT be replying to any of your questions or talking about anything new, for two reasons.

First, you haven't answered the question I put to you, way back on January 26 - that's ten weeks ago. You asked for more time ("I will look at the data you offered - give me a few days. Thnx for your patience.") , but that was after your son's wedding and your problem with the error messages. With those events behind you now and with clear lines of communication between us, I see no reason why you can't make the answer to that question the next and sole topic of your next reply to me. Please do so.

Secondly, because I made the classic blunder of giving you too much leeway in this debate.

Doing that allowed you to avoid answering the question and to respond with questions, not answers. You then widened things out to include cavitation, channeled scablands, Mt. St. Helens and the roche limit. I freely admit that I made a mistake in taking your bait and posting replies to these off-topic areas. Off-topic, as in, not strictly dealing with the specific subject of my initial question about the canyon on Mars.

Well, this message is my correction of that error. Before anything else can be discussed, debate, introduced or linked to, I would really, really, really like you to answer the question put to you. Please do so.

quote name='rayskidude' date='26 March 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1269639222' post='545729']

First things first, Ray!

Geological "anomalies", Ray?

Like this? http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood?

Or this? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood... ...ON MARS!!!

So Mars is 6,000 years old too, just like good ole Earth? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

BAA.[/color]

Was there a global Flood on Mars that rapidly and catastrophically laid down these nice, neat layered deposits of rock strata? If you compare like-with-like, there seems to have been.

BAA.

Look Ray, you can avoid replying about the Flood on Mars if you like - it's your call.

BAA.

SO what's the point - that similar rock formations on differnet planets had the same causation? OK - I can agree to that, in principle. Are you saying that a stream of water slowly cut the formation we see on Mars? Where is this water today? How much water have we detected on Mars?

Re: the Grand Canyon - is it rational to say that a river cut this formation over billions of years? Or would cavitation be a more plausable explanation? Look north to Utah and see where a very large ancient body of water was once held back by mountains - and yet aerial views expose a scablands similar to Washington's >> and it seems as though a large volume of water travelling at extremely high speeds could "dig out" the GC in a matter of months.

This was shown in AZ, when they released flood waters behind the Hoover Dam years ago, and they soon saw "red water" jetting out of the underground tunnels. Later analysis showed that the water had chewed thru the concrete walls into the surrounding rock by cavitation.

So cavitation vs uniformitarianism; I'll go with the cavitation model. Makes more sense and is consistent with what we have actually seen. Has anyone seen a river chisel out a canyon over even thousands of years? Have we seen this phenomenon with the Nile, Mississippi, Ganges, Yellow, Amazon or them big honking rivers in Russia?

But we've seen large amounts of rushing water hew out deep gorges on Mt St Helens in a couple of decades.

Also, re: age of solar system; from what you know about the Roche Limit, how long do you think the Earth-Moon binary system has existed?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok then Ray, let's see if I can get a simple and straightforward answer out of you. I'll even re-state the initial question in more precise terms, so there can be no misunderstanding.

Using only YEC Geology please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?

Thanks.

BAA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(Bump!)

Today makes three months, Ray.

 

The meter's running up quite a bit on this one, huh? Oh well, it's your loss. I'll bump this thread again in another three months. Byeeee!

 

BAA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

[Hold up a minute Ray! We need to slam on the brakes here and back up a bit. I WILL NOT be replying to any of your questions or talking about anything new, for two reasons.

First, you haven't answered the question I put to you, way back on January 26 - that's ten weeks ago. You asked for more time ("I will look at the data you offered - give me a few days. Thnx for your patience.") , but that was after your son's wedding and your problem with the error messages. With those events behind you now and with clear lines of communication between us, I see no reason why you can't make the answer to that question the next and sole topic of your next reply to me. Please do so.

 

Let's get one thing straight BAA - I am not beholden to your artificial timetable. And when did I ever say that the canyon on Mars was created by a flood? Re: the Grand Canyon - again, I never stated that it was formed by cavitation, but rather I simply said that cavitation makes so much more sense than uniformitarian models.

 

Why? Because we have seen the digging that cavitation can do in dam operations - and we can see the indirect evidence in the western scab-lands. However, we cannot see any evidence of uniformitarian modes of operation digging deeper into Earth's crust - even though we've seen huge rivers run for thousands of years.

 

Secondly, because I made the classic blunder of giving you too much leeway in this debate. Doing that allowed you to avoid answering the question and to respond with questions, not answers. You then widened things out to include cavitation, channeled scablands, Mt. St. Helens and the roche limit. I freely admit that I made a mistake in taking your bait and posting replies to these off-topic areas. Off-topic, as in, not strictly dealing with the specific subject of my initial question about the canyon on Mars. Well, this message is my correction of that error. Before anything else can be discussed, debate, introduced or linked to, I would really, really, really like you to answer the question put to you. Please do so.

 

Bro - you're being way to hard on yourself. The questions I asked and the facts of cavitation and the Roche limit (and the depth of dust on the moon) all speak to related issues - the age of the planets. If you don't have billions of years for uniformitarian geology to operate - then you don't get a canyon cut by a meandering river. I am not evading your question - I am putting your question in a larger context.

 

My answer is: I don't know how the Grand Canyon was formed; so ergo, I don't know how the Mars canyon was formed. But I do know - from what we humans know about geology, that cavitation (and actually catastrophism in genera)l are more likely causes than the uniformitarian model of Lyell . I think we know this intuitively, as well.

 

7 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;

the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;

8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;

and the fish of the sea will declare to you.

9 Who among all these does not know

that the hand of the LORD has done this?

10 In his hand is the life of every living thing

and the breath of all mankind.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Job 12:7–10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

 

Today makes three months, Ray. The meter's running up quite a bit on this one, huh? Oh well, it's your loss. I'll bump this thread again in another three months. Byeeee!

BAA[/color]

 

I have been reading a book on Intelligent Design with some friends - I'm almost finished. And I'm almost finished with Volume II of a three-volume set re: systematic theology - also reading this with friends. Then I will re-read a chapter in The New Creationism on YEC geology and give some geological reasonings for my statements.

 

I do appreciate your patience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So where's Ray been anyway? I wonder if he ever finished Spong's book.

 

I have read the first four chapters - I will pick it up again soon. But to be honest - he's not much of a scholar. And lots of his 'scholarship' has been abandoned by further research - but I promised to read the book - and I will. As I say in the previous post - I'm nearly done reading two other books, so I should be able to resume soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.