5 Likes
“An anachronism in the text from a later author is hardly enough evidence to overshadow the universal language, narrative thrust and undoing of creation in the text itself. Not to mention, I can point out a host of anachronisms that that don’t stop Christians from thinking Moses wrote the Pentateuch.”
This seems to confuse two types of anachronisms. The Pentateuch contains anachronisms in the use of later names for locations and peoples, as well as the occasional “and it is there to this day”. These would be expected from scribes updating the language as they copied. (There are imaginary anachronisms, like the claim that camels weren’t in use yet or that Edom couldn’t have chiefs when people there were still nomadic or that ancient Hebrews couldn’t possibly have thought that monotheism was true.) But the text is talking about things that were around at the time, despite using more modern words. Genesis 2 is describing the location of Eden in terms of landmarks that are recognizable to the audience. Calling that an anachronism is saying that the narrator carelessly imposed his current geography on the pre-flood narrative. It’s like the Islamic apologists claiming that Noah’s family used cell phones to coordinate rounding up the animals for the ark. Carelessly saying that modern rivers were present seems implausible if a flood geology-like flood was envisioned; an imaginary geography would fit such an imposition better.
1 Like
Don’t forget the sun, which produces harmful UV rays; water, which can drown or poison you …
1 Like
“Steady state theory” is, strictly speaking, the idea that the universe is eternal, with new stuff continually being created somehow. Although a truly eternal universe is not biblical, it seems possible that God could create a universe in which stuff was continually being created and thus would look rather like a steady state one. However, the evidence for the Big Bang strongly contradicts the steady state idea.
Assuming that the current laws of nature applied during the Flood has nothing to do with that steady state. Rather, it is an example of uniformitarianism. Some young-earth advocates like to bash uniformitarianism. But the reality is that uniformitarianism is both biblical and essential for all understanding of history. Unless we assume that some things do not abruptly change, we cannot understand anything about the past. Genesis 1 asserts that God is in control of all things and that we are made to understand and care for the world. If so, the universe should not behave in arbitrary, changing ways.
Of course, one can take uniformitarianism too far, e.g., denying that miracles can happen or assuming that things were constant that do change (the latter is a common young-earth error). But the young-earth opposition to uniformitarianism is because it means that you can’t just make something up and honestly claim that things happened that way when the evidence all points against it. Also, your initial post asked whether the idea was scientifically tenable. You can’t reject science and claim that this makes an idea work scientifically.
3 Likes
That is exactly what I am saying and it’s not that big of a deal. Many contradictions and oversights are allowed to stand.
And are you saying the Genesis flood didn’t cover the original garden of Eden or the area of those rivers? How local was it?
i have theological problems with the idea that one can combine uniformitarianism with steady state.
The reason why is simple…
- Uniformitarianism from a theological perspective reflects Gods unchanging nature. However,
- to apply that principle to a Creation that was corrupted by sin, given the biblical account that God created the earth from nothing then his creation was corrupted by sin and He destroyed all life on earth (except those in the Ark) during the flood, and in reading that all of the corruption will be cleansed from the earth as outlined in the books of Daniel and Revelation,I do not agree that its possible to apply the same to the earth itself as we do God nature. Clearly, the biblical accounts of Creation, The Flood, Joshuas day the sun stood still, various miracles of the prophets, Christ, and the disciples, the Second Coming and final cleasing of the Earth from all sin doesnt support a steady state belief.
The point is, the corruption of sin counters any notion of steady state. I dont care what anyone here says, you cannot possibly believe in steady state and be Christian…it is 100% antibiblical, its goes goes the entire theme of the Bible for starters and removes the need for salvation as a mechanism for the restoration of us back to our Creator.
This thread is an exploration and it aims to challenge any ideas about either side of the debate.
As most biologs members are incapble of even contemplating the literal flood account, then who is going to do that…its rather obvious from your previous posts in these forums that you wont Dale! Your statement is indicative of a Chinese immigrant intent on making their fortune by “foraging through discarded tailings looking for speaks of gold”!
I have said i have no particular belief on the idea, however, i am interested in it and considering i posted the question because I want the arguments for and against…im also obviously going to be doing more than just listening to one side of the debate. Trouble is, no one here is putting anything else from the affirmative side into this…so i have to research that outside this forum and then bring it in myself.
The reason why im countering many arguments put forward here is because i can see the faults in them…one of which is the misleading claim of “single use” litre for litre steam explosion claim (ie that the total water on the earth is less than half that of the mass of the asteroid belt so it doesnt have enough energy to eject them into space). I am glad for my paragliding experience flying in thermals because i know that claim is 100% false. Steam condenses into cloud, saturates the cloud, then it rains and the process may repeat over and over again. The idea of rain and flood actually makes this a more probable explanation rather than less given that the consensus among some biblical scholars was that it did not rain prior to the flood.
The truth is Dale, if you truly were capable of rationally making conclusions using the appropriate educated methods, then you would not play “gold tailings fortune seeker” in the first place!
Ok, back on topic…we know that the earth is about 80 times the mass of the moon. The asteroid belt is theoretically claimed to be about 3% of the moons mass. Wouldnt that roughly be about 1/2700th that of the earth? if im roughly right, then this when compared with the size of the earth isnt a big number.
Neither do I, but because observations support the big bang cosmology over steady state.
You may be thinking of uniformitarianism, which is the application of observational science to interpret evidence of similar processes in the past. Of course, geologists also understand that regular processes have been punctuated by catastrophic episodes involving impactors, volcanism, megafloods from breaches, and extreme climate events. Ultimately, scientists are guided by the evidence, not presuppositions.
1 Like
And I think you are dishonest (and a Pharisee as indicated here).
1 Like
Well, speeding up radiometric decay would exceed the 3 x 10^29 J: it would release over (estimate based on current levels of uranium, thorium, and potassium) 5 x 10^32 J. Which, incidentally, is quite close to what the first Death Star is putting out, but spread over 6 months instead of 1 second, thus it wouldn’t explode the earth, just turn it into a ball of plasma emitting more X-rays than the rest of the galaxy combined.
5 Likes
Adam had lungs like modern people? Terrestrial animals had lungs? If so, then it can’t have been different enough for this to work.
Yes, because that’s how physics works. Releasing x energy into y moles of water will raise the temperature by a set amount.
Given the energy release, the entire planet would be molten, thus all of this is irrelevant.
2 Likes
But that’s confusing.
That is the problem. The mass of the Earth creates a large gravity well. If you do not supply enough energy, the math is clear that escape cannot happen. If you do supply enough energy, the heat would melt the Earth.
Except for entropy, the laws of physics are the same when run backwards. The heat generated by the Chicxulub impactor is equivalent to the heat necessary to reverse the process to launch the same mass back into space. That impact did not just melt, not just vaporize, but generated a plume of plasma initially in excess of 10,000 Deg C. Now multiply that impact by 10,000 for the mass of the asteroid belt. And given that it is more efficient to turn kinetic energy into heat than heat into kinetic energy, the situation is much worse.
Or if all this math and physics is bothersome, we could just say the whole idea is - to risk being flagged for language - silly.
1 Like
I’m not treating it as a knife in the back. It’s always good to have a spiritual health check. (2 Corinthians 13:5). My response to that question was to pray and make sure that I could answer in the affirmative.
Is it a loaded question? Undoubtedly. Passive-aggressive and saturated with judgment and accusation? Quite clearly yes. Does he use some new meaning of the word “Christian” of which I was not previously aware? I think that it’s pretty clear that he does. Is it a question being asked in bad faith? I’m pretty sure it is. But the whole purpose of things such as that is to goad us into a reaction, by getting us all defensive, prickly, and offended. By getting wound up and stressed about it, I would be giving him exactly what he wants.
I think that the best—and most Christian—response to things such as this is to just forgive him and move on. In recent months I’ve realised that getting upset about the effect that bad attitudes to science in the Church have had on my career in the past is counterproductive, because it’s a drain on my time and distracts me from moving forward with my life and career into the future.
In any case, whether or not Adam thinks I’m a Christian is neither here nor there. The important question is whether or not Jesus thinks I’m a Christian.
6 Likes
the above is completely ignoring an important statement that was made…the breakup of the fountains of the deep is not interpreted as an instantaneous event.
The rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights and the flood lasted a year…it is more than likely that the most catestrophic of the seismic activity lasted for weeks and maybe even months.
One has to stop thinking redneck stuff and just look at how this might work. This useless focusing on a single catastrophic explosion…I have not once made any claim of that kind nor do i even believe it myself…its absurd.
I agree with this Ron…the point is, the claim about the amount of energy required i think might be highly misleading. I honestly feel that it is attempting to make a single explosion responsible for the ejection of rocks out into space. I do not find any statement of that kind in the flood account but perhaps im reading it differently to what it really says.
In the Bible flood narrative, the rains went on for at least 40 days and nights…that suggests to me that the seismic activity at its worst was during this period. It also suggests that the constant rain allowed for cooling and condensing back into water, time for water ingress back into the underground aquifers (or whatever they were at the time) and re-exposure to hot molten matter in different places…and then the process would therefore be able to repeat itself over and over again in different areas all around the globe…and that i think might be the key to all of this.
When someone says to me, it cant be done…Edison immediately comes to mind and so does my own lifes experiences. Unless people are willing to entertain the idea that it might be possible, then even the light bulb doesnt get invented! The more i research and think about this, the more convinced i am that it has enough merit to search further.
one thing i will admit at present, asteroids in space dont seem to me at this point to be a salvation issue…i am just genuinely interested in finding an explanation for their existence. My gut doesn’t really feel that God created them just for us to look at or try to stop from killing us all should they collide with this earth…to me that kind of creation is a bit unGodly however one can never say never i know that. I mean a Christian scientist could claim God created asteroids after the fall of mankind because He knew he would need to them to hurl at the earth during OT times for the purposes of destroying Sodom and Gomorah (personally i dont believe that idea but hey its worth throwing out there just the same)
That doesn’t matter–the heat can’t dissipate fast enough. Even with 90% efficiency, in order to radiate that much energy in six months the earth would have to have a surface temperature close to 4500 K.
3 Likes
If any such reservoirs were unstable enough to let go at all, the seismic shock from neighboring events would trigger them, and so on in a rapid chain reaction.
But even if spread out, as Timothy points out, the rate of heat dissipation to space would be nowhere close to the rate of heat addition. Also, there are larger asteroids which, even a single chunks, are of themselves sufficiently massive for planetary destruction. You have to appreciate the gravitational energies involved would massively overwhelm any quenching effect of water. Noah’s ark would be adrift on seas of molten rock, in a rarified atmosphere of superheated steam.
If you have ingress, you do not have the required containment.
Edison invented the light bulb, not perpetual motion. Wright brothers pioneered flight, not anti-gravity boots. Technology must and always has progressed within the limits imposed by the math of physics.
Speaking of which…how does asteroid impact cratering such as on the moon and mercury fit into this?
2 Likes
Thats incorrect…you are trying to cool the entire quanitity all at once. Instead, it all took place over a period of many months…and in this scenario, i dont believe cooling back to water is even an issue…that wouldnt take anywhere near that amount of time.
You are not following what Timothy is saying.
Who cares what you believe or your folksy guesstimates. Show your work.
Cooling back to solid rock, let alone liquid water, is an issue. You seem to think that the energy involved is a mere million nuclear warheads or something trivial. No, we are talking serious joules.
2 Likes