Re: [asa] Re: Slug

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:50:31 +0800 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
> For David and Iain and Michael Roberts
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of D. F. Siemens,
> Jr.
> > Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:53 AM
> >
> > Glenn,
> > I didn't say you thought like a YEC. But you have pieces of a
> > YEC mindset, and IMO you argue like a YEC fundamentalist.
>
> Great, You were copied on a private note from Ed Babinski, an
> atheist. He
> seems to think more like me. But on this list, the YEC label is
> much more
> useful than the atheist label. And you ignore the counter
> data--something
> you are charging me with below.
>
>
> > Otherwise you would not be quoting astronomers as if they
> > believed in a solid sphere around the earth. I can't imagine
> > an atheist arguing that point. The heavens are all about us,
> > so they use angular measurement in 3 dimensions. The only
> > thing that puts a limit to the sphere is the distance that
> > they can see, which is somewhat less than 13.7 Gltyr. But the
> > total universe may be larger.
>
> You too had the point zip right over your head. Obviously you
> didn't read
> where I said that language constrains us and then gave lots and lots
> of
> examples. What I was doing was a parody of your approach and
> amazingly, you
> took it seriously. I would say that this illustrates the lack of
> introspection and knowledge of your own position WRT raqiya and what
> it
> looks like to others.
>
> If you claim that raqiya must be taken literally in the Bible as a
> solid
> dome (something I am not convinced is correct), then to be
> consistent you
> must also claim that the astronomers, when they use words, are
> teaching the
> literal meanings of those words. But of course, consistency isn't
> something
> useful to your position.
>
> >
> > Seems to me that you are impervious to all evidences that do
> > not fit your view, which makes me wonder how geology
> > persuaded you to abandon YEC.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Getting desperate are we? Running out of
> arguments?
> You still haven't said you were wrong When you said that the depth
> of the
> lip of the Gibraltar had to be constant over the past 5 million
> years and
> couldn't have been deeper in the past. You still haven't said you
> were
> wrong when I pointed out that Gibraltar wasn't even there 5 million
> years
> ago.
>
> You haven't admitted you were wrong when you charged me with saying:
> >>>"You claim that scripture must be true throughout. <<<<
>
> I told you you couldn't find me saying that. What I want is some
> observational support. That is different from saying that it must
> be true
> throughout (I don't want you pulling out that irrelevant Lord is my
> shepard
> thing), but you have not acknowledge the counter data. Live what
> you
> preach!
>
Let's see, you cited Foundation, Fall and Flood, p. 176
"All it would take for the flood to occur would be for these falls to
erode
their way through to the Atlantic Ocean. There is an indication of how
deeply the Gibraltar Dam collapsed. The Trubi marl in Sicily, which
rests
on desert deposits, contains sea bottom dwelling animals that can only
live
in water depths in excess of 3,000 feet. The dam at Gibraltar must have
broken at least to that depth so that these animals could crawl or be
washed
into the Mediterranean basin. This means that the collapse would have
been
catastrophic. Calculations show that with a break 3,000 feet deep, 15
miles
wide, and a water speed of 15 miles per hour, the entire Mediterranean
would
refill in 8.4 months, an extremely short time compared with the massive
quantity of water needed to fill this large basin. This is a time frame
comparable to the time reported in the Bible for Noah's Flood."

and I noted that the scablands did not involve a 3000' head or an entire
ocean as source. Also that the flow over Niagara Falls, with less than 10
m of depth, is 68 kmh. The flow at Gibraltar now, in a channel at least
300 m deep, driven by evaporation and wind, along with the flow of dense
water along the bottom, is up to at least 6 knots at times.

I also wrote that I was looking for the fact that would give your theory
the /coup de grace/ and hadn't found it. If I missed the point of your
"rebuttal," sorry. But I find your claims irrelevant to rejecting a
firmament-/stereoma/ with sluice-gates to release the water, something
that has no connection to Aristotle's multiple crystal spheres. The
lowest of them carried the moon, above the natural place of fire.Water's
place was below both air and fire. The moon and other heavenly bodies
were not made of any of the four elements, but composed of quintessence
or aether.

As to heavenly bodies moving with a solid firmament, I note that the
Enuma Elish (?) speaks of a moon-god and sun-god on tablet 5. The former
had to coordinate with the latter. The sky was half the body of Tiamat,
the freshwater sea and primordial goddess. The Egyptians had Ra sailing
across the sky in a barge. They did not need a further mechanism, for
gods can move as they please. With a single deity, Israel had all nature
obey the divine will. What more would be needed?
Dave
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 17 19:40:02 2006