Interesting article. I learned a lot. Thanks, @beaglelady.
1 Like
Yes, I’m sure Tertullian knew nothing about plate tectonics. Yet, he was not just talking about marine fossils on tops of mountains–he said, “even” on these heights.
Yeah, you’re probably right about the “tritons horns.”
However, he wasn’t saying that these shells “lived” under water, when he spoke of the “heights” being “undulated.” Rather, they had been buried under sediments deposited by this “undulation.”
Just as is true of all fossils. Many bird fossils have been discovered–which were also covered by sediments deposited by undulation. Yet, of course, the birds didn’t actually live under those sediments–or, live under the water that had transported and deposited them.
Actually, they just died under that water.
I took the “hiding itself” more literally than I think you meant it. But it does beg the question of how one goes about forming a conclusion.
Let me poach Klax’s statement above: “there are fully, completely, totally natural explanations for all phenomena.” I agree with Klax. I do not believe in the supernatural. But you do. So why remove supernatural concepts, like biblical creation, from the supernatural and expose them to the scientific method like you are doing with the whale falls example? Why not live in two worlds, one that makes sense to pray that the lawnmower will start this time and one that makes sense to check the fuel level?
“Two Creation Accounts.” No, two different focuses (or foci). Genesis 1 is a chronological zoom-out of the creation of all things, while Genesis 2 is a topical (not chronological) zoom-in on the creation of the man and the woman, and the responsibilities God entrusted to them in the Garden.
“Two different descriptions of Abraham’s covenant with God.” No, Genesis 15 is God’s covenant with Abram (vs.18), supported by His oath to Abram. Genesis 17 is God’s extension of this same covenant to Abram’s descendants (vs.7)
“Two different accounts of Jacob’s name change to Israel.” No, Genesis 32 gives the background event that led to this name change. But he wasn’t called “Israel” yet–rather, this name change was future to Genesis 32: “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel.” Genesis 35 is the fulfillment, when the name change actually occurs.
“Two different commissions for Moses to lead Israel: Exodus 3 and Genesis 6” No. In fact, Genesis 6 is the time of the Flood! Long before Moses was even born! Did this writer even proof read his own article. And you, Beaglelady, did you even check these references? You believe this guy–but don’t even check out his “evidence”??
Concerning the Flood:
-
Two different authors since two different names for God: Elohim (“God”) and Yahweh (“Lord”, meaning “the I Am”–no beginning, no end). No. These names are interchanged–something attributed to “God” is also attributed to the “Lord.” For example, in Genesis 7:5, the “Lord” commands Noah about the ark animals; then just three verses later, “God” commands Noah about the same thing. “Lord” is simply the more personal name of God, in His relationship to His covenant people.
-
Duration of the Flood: “40 days” (Genesis 7:17) versus “150 days” (7:24). No, “40 days” was the length of time it rained. “150 days” was the length of time the Flood waters had progressively “prevailed” upon the earth–covering its surface more and more until 15 cubits higher than the highest elevation on earth at that time.
-
How many pairs of animals: “2 of every kind” (Genesis 6:19), “clean animals by sevens” (7:2). Genesis 6:19 was the general rule; 7:2 was more specific, addressing the need for sacrificial (“clean”) animals–thus, specifying their being taken on “by sevens.” 8:19 makes it clear these extra “clean” animals were for sacrificial purposes.
-
“Different birds sent out, to determine when the earth was dry enough, to leave the ark.” Not two different accounts, but a succession of two different birds sent out. Genesis 8:7–a raven is sent out, that never returns. Genesis 8:12–three doves are sent out after that, and in succession, the last one never returning–the earth is now dry!
I am confident that even a middle-schooler could have seen there were no actual contradictions in these examples.
I’ve got to ask you, beaglelady…did you even read these supposed contradictions? I know you could have seen through them, if you had only read them.
1 Like
Kendel, please get specific here. Everyone in this exchange has his/her own convictions about things in the Bible, and outside the Bible. And the purpose of this exchange is to test each other’s convictions. What evidence are you referring to?
1 Like
Unfortunately, this appeal to (Tertullian’s) authority doesn’t prove that the evidence we see today is evidence of a global flood. For example, Martin Luther believed that the sun orbited the earth, but that does not make it so any more than quoting Tertullian makes a global flood reality.
7 Likes
Sorry?
You only demonstrate that you have and project.
You have bought in to a metanarrative, which of course is forbidden by postmodernism, and project a myth on to reality.
And what’s your yeah-but again to the absurdity of front loading five million years of sediment in to the a-rational myth of five months and then back in to five million years in your interior Gish gallop?
And to the point generally that science doesn’t have to discount what doesn’t count?
Ooh, and how did the whales die again? You remember. In September 2348 BCE at the top of over three miles of water?
You really need to kick your own tyres or just look and see that they are flat before you set out buddy.
1 Like
Actually I think it should be read intelligently with input from scholars. You seem to conflate your opinion with the very word of God.
1 Like
Are you kidding me? This is pathetic! Can’t you do better than this?
Desperate tap-dancing, followed by an insult.
Are you kidding? The order of creation is different in the two accounts.
The only authority I have seen thus far who has said that is your creationist source, so not exactly an authority.
2 Likes
I am saying that the inland sea slowly crept onto the craton. The parts that the inland sea covered would have slowly accumulated sediments as eroded material was transported by rivers to the sea. This is the same process that is creating thick sediments right now in large bodies of water.
3 Likes
Charonia, specifically.
1 Like
That’s interesting. You never mentioned a test in your OP:
Marriage and family counselors would call this kind of mechanism a trap. It’s bad form.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your quote is the evidence I’m referring to:
I am not interested in evaluating your science. There are capable, knowledgeable scientists here who have done that very well. I am not even an amateur scientist. I am more interested in your thinking, and the path your logic takes, where it takes you, what you do with your conclusions.
Following the evidence I’ve seen of your thinking in this thread, I repeat what I had said before:
Reading over my post as well as II Peter, I can see better why you would ask me to clarify what I mean by evidence, because you use the word differently than most of the people whose posts I’ve read in this thread.
By evidence you seem sometimes to mean:
-((Phenomena we find in nature) AND (The interpretation of those phenomena in a way that supports the use of nature as an apologetic)).
You clarify this in your references to II Peter, for example:
Here you give your interpretation of the verses (out of context) as well as natural phenomena as something that must be viewed in a way that points to the coming of Christ. It’s also interesting to see how your shift these verses a bit to imply that Dale, jammycakes and beaglelady are scoffing, because they reject your understanding of fossils, geology and these verses. None of these Christians was scoffing about the return of Christ.
Your post is not “evidence;” it’s not an indication of a love of truth; it’s not an ethical way to treat others, either.
Which brings me back to this:
In regard to my conclusion:
I’ve run out of time to pull all the links for these examples, but below are the reference numbers for posts in which you seem to feel the right to wield some sort of apostolic authority over people, threatening them with the judgement that Peter applies to those who scoff at the thought of the second coming of our Lord: 86, 93, 95, 98, 178, 247 and 292. Again, bad form.
So, if people don’t agree with you as to what evidence is and how it should be understood, as well as how the Bible should be understood, you equate disagreement with disbelief and scoffing at Christ.
None of that is science or logic by any means.
5 Likes
Sediment is replenished as it is deposited, over many millions of years. There is no need or support for high energy hydrodynamic power. Sediment is transported by currents, generated in place by marine organisms and water erosion, and flows from the Coastal and Appalachian mountain ranges. How is this not self evident?
Of course they were. First video is only one minute.
Sediment, whether in the major oceans or on land, is principally formed from erosion or biologic processes. Given a young earth, the little time available would have accumulated little in the way of oceanic sediment to transport anywhere.
The Interior Seaway was continuous with other oceans over millions of years, just as the Caribbean Sea, North Sea, or Barents Sea. Seawater is never pristine, and there are always currents adrift with silicate and calcite sediments.
2 Likes
You missed the question that occasioned this response. The question had to do with what evidence of the Flood early Christians noticed. I responded that Tertullian–an early Christian–saw evidence of the Flood in marine fossils.
Wow, Klax…why are you so testy–so emotionally involved in this thread?
1 Like
When the Bible specifically explains an event as being supernatural–I call it supernatural. And this is certainly true of the Creation account in Genesis 1. In fact, even later references in Scripture to the Creation account expressly identify it as occurring by a suspension of natural law: “He spoke–and it was done!” Psalm 33:9.
But having completed Creation, God put natural law into motion. Whale falls involve natural–not supernatural–consumption of whale carcasses.
1 Like