js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (12/18/84)
Several times, in the last year or so, I've heard statements about
flood hydrodynamics, and a (generally bogus sounding) arguement about
hydrological sorting during the flood as a mechanism to explain the ordering
of fossils in the geological column. This leads me to believe that
creationists generally support the idea of a worldwide flood. However,
this seems to be in direct conflict with what has been stated on the net
as the 'scientific creationism' theory.
What conflict? Well, the theory, as it was stated, allowed for a
period of time before the ordinary laws of physics were put into effect
during which 'God' created the earth, tweaked the level of radiation
in rocks which He wanted to appear old, and all of the other things which
he would have had to do to make the world seem so much older than 10K years.
After this period of time, things were supposed to be run according to
constant physical 'laws'.
But, (yes, he's going to ask that embarassing question) WHAT HAPPENED TO
ALL OF THE WATER? Enough to cover the highest mountains! More than the
oceans contain by quite a lot. Absolutely stupendous quantities of water
just missing.
Unless you can come up with an alternative, it looks as though you'll have
to modify youre theory to include a SECOND period during which this 'God'
entity you theorize suspended physical law in order to do away with the
excess water he'd used to drown his creations.
My, this theory is getting messy. But at least it explains some of
the really BIG pieces of evidence.
Yessiree, folks. It was all done with mirror-cles.
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2jmfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/19/84)
The whole debate about Flood vs no Flood (or for that matter about
creationism vs evolution) is pretty pointless in my mind.
There is data to support the postulate that much of what is now
the Middle East was flooded at some point about 10,000 years
ago (I am not exact on the dates, you nit-pick flamers.) To the
writers of the Bible, the Middle East *was* the world. Ergo,
a world flood. Which leads me to something that has been forgotten:
THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN FOR ITS INTENDED AUDIENCE
That means sheperds, fishermen, etc.
The Bible (i.e. Genesis) was *not* intended as the "literal" word of God! It is
the record of how the people of 4,000 BC explained what they saw
around them. This is similar to the Romans seeing a small and a large
bear in the heavens (the constellations Ursa Minor and Ursa Major)
We explain what we see and hear in different ways called quantum
mechanics and molecular biology. 2,000 years from now they may well
have totally different explanations. You all have heard the stuff
about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic.
My point is: the current theory for the creation of the Universe, the
so-called Big Bang, postulates the explosion of an extremely dense
ball of energy. Where does the ball come from? From God, of course
(who grew bored one day and decided to have a little fun creating the universe)
I am much more in awe of a deity that can create this much energy,
explode it, and let the pieces fall where thay may, governed by some
exquisitely chosen laws, than of a deity that resorts to clay to make
human beings. After all the very same laws lead to the wonders of
Saturn's rings AND to the wonders of our body's immunization system.
At the Big Bang, creationism is right. But it is wrong in everything
else. So there, all can gain satisfaction that your pet argument is "correct".
Marcel Simon {ihnp4!allegra!..}mhuxr!mfsmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/20/84)
>There is data to support the postulate that much of what is now >the Middle East was flooded at some point about 10,000 years >ago (I am not exact on the dates, you nit-pick flamers.) To the >writers of the Bible, the Middle East *was* the world. Ergo, >a world flood. Which leads me to something that has been forgotten: > > THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN FOR ITS INTENDED AUDIENCE > That means sheperds, fishermen, etc. Flood stories come from many parts of the world, but all were handed down by oral tradition for an unknown time before being recorded. Oral tradition can be remarkably accurate, and we may well assume that *some* kind of flooding was pretty general a few thousand years (say 10,000 if you like) ago. What happened around then that we know about? Well ... there was a rise in sea level of quite a few feet as the Ice Age ice melted. Countless fishing villages (if any existed) would have been flooded, and at least people would know that places their grandfathers had known as land were now under water. Couple that with wind-driven tidal surges now and then in flat areas that occur at the ends of many sheltered bays, and you have plenty of seeds for stories of great floods ..."in my father's day" ... "in my great-great grandfather's day" ... "in the days of long ago, there was a huge flood that covered all the land." There's no smoke without fire, but a flood can put it out. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (12/21/84)
> But, WHAT HAPPENED TO >ALL OF THE WATER? Enough to cover the highest mountains! When it drained into the oceans, it was quickly drunk up by all the salt water fish, so that they could keep the oceans salty enuf for them to survive :-)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/24/84)
> > But, WHAT HAPPENED TO > >ALL OF THE WATER? Enough to cover the highest mountains! > > When it drained into the oceans, it was quickly drunk up by all the > salt water fish, so that they could keep the oceans salty enuf for them to > survive :-) That's what I thought, too, but nobody'd believe it if *I* said it. double-:-) -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "The other kids tease be. They call be dubby. I'd dot a dubby, ab I?"
jah@philabs.UUCP (01/02/85)
> > > Several times, in the last year or so, I've heard statements about > flood hydrodynamics, and a (generally bogus sounding) arguement about > hydrological sorting during the flood as a mechanism to explain the ordering > of fossils in the geological column. This leads me to believe that > creationists generally support the idea of a worldwide flood. However, > this seems to be in direct conflict with what has been stated on the net > as the 'scientific creationism' theory. > What conflict? Well, the theory, as it was stated, allowed for a > period of time before the ordinary laws of physics were put into effect > during which 'God' created the earth, tweaked the level of radiation > in rocks which He wanted to appear old, and all of the other things which > he would have had to do to make the world seem so much older than 10K years. > After this period of time, things were supposed to be run according to > constant physical 'laws'. > But, (yes, he's going to ask that embarassing question) WHAT HAPPENED TO > ALL OF THE WATER? Enough to cover the highest mountains! More than the > oceans contain by quite a lot. Absolutely stupendous quantities of water > just missing. > Unless you can come up with an alternative, it looks as though you'll have > to modify youre theory to include a SECOND period during which this 'God' > entity you theorize suspended physical law in order to do away with the > excess water he'd used to drown his creations. > My, this theory is getting messy. But at least it explains some of > the really BIG pieces of evidence. > Yessiree, folks. It was all done with mirror-cles. > > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j What about the fossils in the sides of the mountains?? Either the mountains rose or the water did; cause as far as I know, fish don't fly. And if they did, they'd have to hit pretty hard to get into the sides of those mountains like that. How much radiation is there in *those* BIG rocks??? Julie Harazduk philabs!jah