Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

[Kbertsche]

On a purely physical level, if all the high mountains (elative does not automatically mean "highest" in a comparative sense, it could be "very high" in an absolute sense) were covered with 15 cubits of water, how could the Flood be local or regional?

A local or regional flood would have been bounded by non-Flooded mountains. These would be some of the mountains Noah was aware of and higher than the ones flooded over with 15 cubits of water.

So, how does your scheme work out physically?

If the account were written from Noah's perspective, "all the high mountains" would mean "all the high mountains that Noah was familiar with" or "all the high mountains in Noah's region". A large regional flood should be sufficient for this.

[psstein]

I'm not familiar with any YECs who claim that any part of the Creation is billions of years old. While I have heard this argument I've never heard it put forth by a YEC.

There are a few mentioned in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design.

[psstein]

But most YECs claim to be "biblical literalists" and insist on taking the Days of Genesis 1 as contiguous 24-hour periods. In this reading of the text, the heavenly bodies were created on Day 4, after the earth. Hence the universe cannot be older than the earth.

I don't think it's logically consistent at all. I think the argument is something like celestial bodies were revealed on Day 4, not created.

[shunyadragon]

If the account were written from Noah's perspective, "all the high mountains" would mean "all the high mountains that Noah was familiar with" or "all the high mountains in Noah's region". A large regional flood should be sufficient for this.

There is o evidence of a regional flood of anything close to these proportions. The hypothetical memories of the Black Sea flood is to ancient, and it would nt have covered any mountains.

[hansgeorg]

If the account were written from Noah's perspective, "all the high mountains" would mean "all the high mountains that Noah was familiar with" or "all the high mountains in Noah's region". A large regional flood should be sufficient for this.

A large regional flood would be bounded by higher ground which would be mountains ... why would Noah not have been familiar with these?

[hansgeorg]

I think the argument is something like celestial bodies were revealed on Day 4, not created.

And the text in Genesis says sth different.

[hansgeorg]

The hypothetical memories of the Black Sea flood is to ancient, and it would nt have covered any mountains.

To the first, while I agree on Black Sea Flood NOT exhausting Flood of Noah (and perhaps not being even part of it, perhaps not even existing), I'd like some arguments about how you date how far back it is.

To the second, just hear, hear!

it would nt have covered any mountains.

[Kbertsche]

I don't think it's logically consistent at all. I think the argument is something like celestial bodies were revealed on Day 4, not created.

But I don't know of any YEC who holds to this. The view that the heavenly bodies were created earlier and only revealed on Day 4 is held by Hugh Ross and a number of other OECs, and the YECs strongly attack them for it.

[Kbertsche]

A large regional flood would be bounded by higher ground which would be mountains ... why would Noah not have been familiar with these?

Why would Noah be familiar with these distant mountains and regions? There is no evidence that he was a world traveler.

[rogue06]

There are a few mentioned in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design.

Thanks. I skimmed through that a couple years back while doing some research on some of the major players of the founding of the modern YEC movement. Now if I can remember which library it was in...

[logician bones]

Kb:

I was not responding to Rogue, but to psstein.

Ah, fair enough. You did post pretty fast after his too, so okay. I was reacting to rogue's apparent unawareness of the models I mentioned, which are promoted on all the major YE sites and in their basic materials.

Admittedly, it's possible many who publish via those sites actually don't endorse them, and have just been keeping silent about it (not likely, though). Lisle's recent, weird model does make everything young, but I haven't seen a lot of support for that, either (and he left AiG soon after that... I've wondered if it was coincidence). But Humphreys' model is promoted on AiG and CMI and others. Ken Ham wrote the foreword to his book, feedback articles regularly cite it and other models (like Hartnett's, and these feedback articles are authored by pretty much all the big names from time to time), etc.

By the way, are you aware that these creationists don't like the term "literalist"? What do you mean by it? I don't advise it, as it implies they read poetry literally for example, which they all reject. Though sometimes even some of them do use it.


As for me, for the record, I've heard an argument made that the grammar of the "and the stars" part might not be tied necessarily to the creation at that time. I don't know if this is right or testable, but it's on the table for me. I read the stars as being the backdrop against which the moon and sun allow telling months and years and those purposes are the focus in Gen 1.

Barring that, some kind of reference frame model must be at work. There's also the "time zone" model which is a sort of reference frame.

Note that these same organizations deny the light in transit idea, which has been promoted by those wanting to deny "any part" of the universe being old (in its own reference frame).

Here's an even clearer quote by Ken Ham, where he does not restrict the validity of his statement to any particular reference frame

Kb, AiG is crystal clear that their position is that the reference frame in question in the Bible is Earth's, and obviously so -- hence the "evening/morning" thing. With most well-known YECs, if they refer to the universe as young, or even a distant star as "young", they are virtually always referring to Earth's reference frame for this reason (or else are not even discussing the issue of reference frame or distant starlight at all; the focus of young Earth creation is Earth). This is different from saying a distant star is old from its own reference frame.




hans:

On a purely physical level, if all the high mountains (elative does not automatically mean "highest" in a comparative sense, it could be "very high" in an absolute sense) were covered with 15 cubits of water, how could the Flood be local or regional?

If the mountains in question were the ones Noah could see. It depends on whether God's perspective is given in the account, or Noah's. I see that section as authored by "sons of Noah", so it's very possible it's their perspective. There's a lot of human perspective in these chapters.

Not by the Catholic Church.

Christ was born, "Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono", 5199 after Creation of Heaven and Earth, not just after Creation of Earth.

The term translated "heaven" or "heavens" (shamaiyim) includes the atmosphere, clouds, and likely even the sea, though (it's derived from maiyim; seas/waters). I see that word as referring to "where we can't live" (due to those things being "fluid", primarily). And "earth" refers to land, not "planet Earth". So "earth" is "where we can live.

It's true that the shamaiyim includes everything above the atmosphere, but it seems that on Day 2 the atmosphere was completed (and maybe on Day 4 the sun and moon were first made??), so the shamaiyim from the biblical authors' way of thinking were not completed until then. (Assuming this interpretation is right.)

And if any of these reference frame or timezone models are right, it's possible starlight did not appear until Day 4. Ultimately, I'm not sure why it really matters; there was nobody around to witness it except God and maybe angels.

But point taken, as a literalist, I think the Celestial Bodies were created 4 days later than Earth.

How do you interpret "literal" then? What does the original Hebrew literally mean? Just accepting that the passage is literal doesn't tell us what it means. It's a foreign language, and sometimes things are lost in translation, etc. I assume by this you mean (to refrain from assuming the worst here) that you take the historical narrative portions as historical narrative.

Question for you, too, on that subject -- do you think biblical historical narrative can contain figures of speech?

I took precisely this argument as a cue to become geocentric, which disposes very well with the distant starlight paradox. I am proudly Geocentric since the night to August 24th 2001.

Mhm... Sigh.





Roy:

Well, a lot of vague assurances once again.

Your "real world examples" statement is bizarre, given the many accounts of just that. Several were discussed earlier.

Yes, there are many detailed scenarios described. If you haven't read them, that doesn't make them not exist.

Again you offer nothing but vagueness about fine particles -- and again the contradiction is striking since just above that you demand detail detail detail... Anyway, I don't demand you give it... I can find the time to take your lead and look it up myself. Do you have any specific sources/sites in mind, though? And what evidence do you have for a model that denies this works for the site, or that that model MUST be the correct description of the Flood for that site? Are you accounting for large mass transport, water soaking down into looser sediment rather than having a clear path to the sea, etc?

Re: "removed the reasons" -- whether it's my fault or yours, I didn't see any such evidence cited in your post, just your own personal speculation, and that wasn't clear anyway. But thanks for trying to clarify. Your clarification seems to confirm what I suspected -- you still haven't taken into account what was described earlier about multiple inrushes during the total inrush period, which is well-evidenced, and has been supported. You're apparently imagining a highly oversimplified scenario. You're also apparently not even accounting for animals floating! (I assume that was just bad word choice, though??)




hans:

A large regional flood would be bounded by higher ground which would be mountains ... why would Noah not have been familiar with these?

I'm guessing you haven't read through the whole topic... IIRC, there was a lot of discussion about what I've been calling a "near-global Flood" (for lack of thinking of a better term so far). Being bounded by mountains is different from having some mountains poking above water that spreads out globally to flood the vast majority of the land. Basically, you're falling for a false dichotomy -- it doesn't have to be only either a VERY local Flood or a "everything under". You're ignoring the obvious middle ground (apparently).

I'm not saying I demand any mountains be either above OR underwater, but I don't see this possibility being seriously engaged with as much as I think it should be.





Kb:

The "timezone" model could be described as stars being "revealed" then. The "revealed" idea seems to refer either to that or to clouds clearing for the first time.

Also, it looks to me like you're relying too much on the idea of strict "holding to" models. I'm hoping that's just appearance, though, since you say you've followed YECs a lot. Your wording is giving me that impression, anyway. Just giving you the chance to clarify.

[rogue06]

Kb:



Ah, fair enough. You did post pretty fast after his too, so okay. I was reacting to rogue's apparent unawareness of the models I mentioned, which are promoted on all the major YE sites and in their basic materials.

Then you should have no trouble providing multiple examples like you were asked to do. smiley waiting2.gif

[logician bones]

rogue, read the rest of the post...

[rogue06]

rogue, read the rest of the post...

Russell Humphreys? He claims both the earth and surrounding universe are 6000 years old when measured in Earth's reference frame, which is pretty much how we measure time.

[logician bones]

And? How exactly does that make a distant star not old in any sense of the word (in other words, its own reference frame)? (I mean within that model.)

We measure time usually from our reference frame because that's where we are. But a distant star isn't here. Right?