World Wide Flood Of Noah

[shalamabobbi]

created by the ion fountains spouting upwards from underneath the water and ice at the poles..

I didn't find this in your article.

An accidental discovery in the 1980s and new data collected since 1996 indicate that this magnetosphere may well be filled by a fountain of energized gas (right) blowing from the north and south poles.

The wording here is unfortunate and is probably where you added onto it the idea that the particles originated from under the ice and water. Under the ice and water is earth. These particles would not pass through this material. If they had that much energy the interior environment would be hotter than the surface of the sun(the real sun). And the energy imparted to the ice and water by such an energetic stream of particles would, well..

Try giving this a read. It may help you understand what is happening. Hint: the magnetic field is most concentrated at the poles..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_mirror

The last effect is called mirroring. As a particle moves along a magnetic field line, its orientation to the field line changes until the particle is repelled towards the other pole...

"We're not starting with a solar wind particle at 1 keV," Chappell sad, "but with atmospheric particles at a few eV. They make up everything you see up there."

There is this in your reference:

In 1987, Chappell and the RIMS team published a paper describing the polar ion fountain and described the ionosphere as a "fully adequate source of material for the magnetosphere."

The ionosphere is the suspected source not the interior of the planet.

RIMS also could not measure the lowest energy ions which would help confirm that the source was the ionosphere and not the solar wind...

Part of the challenge in these studies is that most of the magnetotail is made of the same material as the solar wind: protons. Actually, they are called hydrogen ions, but since most hydrogen is made of one proton circled by one electron, a hydrogen ion is just a free proton. And protons don't carry ID cards to tell whether they came from the Sun or the Earth. (Isotope analysis counts the numbers of protons and neutrons in an atom, so it only works on heavier elements.)

Sound familiar? In other words it is still inconclusive. Reminds me of the solar neutrinos that everyone flapped the mouth about that were supposed to be the mechanism by which radiation changed it's rate of decay. Turned out to be a false measurement issue..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/more-follow-up-on-the-solar-neutrinos-radioactive-decay-story-experimental-falsification/

TIDE expanded on RIMS's measurements and showed that the ion flow starts with very low energies, down to a few tenths of an electron-volt...

The really incredible thing," Chappell said, "is that if you do a very careful model of the magnetic field and electric field, and then put in 10 eV particles, they go into the plasma sheet, and are energized at least a thousandfold." ...

Even if it is not filling the magnetotail, or even contributing a lot of material, the solar wind still plays an important role, Chappell said. It generates the electric field which energizes the tail.

They get accelerated by the environment, not from a sun hidden in the center of the earth.

***************************************

Your understanding of the physics of gravity is off by 300 years. You could take a college course in physics. Just a suggestion.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

You passed over the physics of such a tiny star and how it would function but that is not surprising. But if you'd care to reply I'd enjoy the entertainment. Thanks.

[shalamabobbi]

"For the life of me, I just can't figure out why astronomers and physicists aren't picking up on this idea more. Oh, that's right, their centuries old delusions of gravity get in the way ... pity."

"Well, I'm not buying that, but what if you take the corollary argument and say that all celestial bodies are already naturally occuring Dyson spheres (a fancy way of saying 'hollow'), and hence the gravitational effects we witness are actually attributable to far less matter to begin with (83% to be exact)! ... Then the scientific types can finally balance out their equations and go home happy. Everybody wins."

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/

It seems an incorrect understanding of gravity and acceptance of this theory go hand in hand..

[Ron Beron]

dup

Edited September 3, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Ron Beron]

I have been participating on these boards since when we were debating on the AOL boards and we have argued this situation ad nauseum. We will never, ever agree. Why even try? I used to play Dungeons and Dragons years ago (Commander 64...I know...I'm old) and I was stuck on the last scenario of "The Eye of the Beholder" and must have tried at least 50 times to beat the game and for what? A brief endscreen in poor graphics?? I finally figured out how to win...I turned off the game. The only way to win this game is to turn it off and go somewhere else. I doubt this will happen, but humor me for a bit. Thanks.

[Franktalk]

Tree Rings & C-14 correlations

Are you telling me that all C-14 dating is correct? If you are then you must accept the dates of all items dated this way. Are you willing to do this? Or as I suspect you will pick and choose only those C-14 items that fit your view of the past.

I am of the mindset to toss whole processes when I find they are inconsistent and riddled with so called anomalies. When I posted the opinion of Kuhn it was for a reason. He said and I agree with him that science takes way to many liberties with data sorting and data ignoring. C-14 is one of those areas where there are way too many anomalies to justify the hard opinions of some in science.

Feel free to disagree with me. But please tell me why you ignore anomalies? If indeed science lives or dies on data then the data should be king. Sorting it would make the scientist king. I think if the man on the street knew how much sorting and ignoring went on they would lose respect for science.

[shalamabobbi]

Are you telling me that all C-14 dating is correct? If you are then you must accept the dates of all items dated this way. Are you willing to do this? Or as I suspect you will pick and choose only those C-14 items that fit your view of the past.

I am of the mindset to toss whole processes when I find they are inconsistent and riddled with so called anomalies. When I posted the opinion of Kuhn it was for a reason. He said and I agree with him that science takes way to many liberties with data sorting and data ignoring. C-14 is one of those areas where there are way too many anomalies to justify the hard opinions of some in science.

Feel free to disagree with me. But please tell me why you ignore anomalies? If indeed science lives or dies on data then the data should be king. Sorting it would make the scientist king. I think if the man on the street knew how much sorting and ignoring went on they would lose respect for science.

If you have some *anomolies* that are not understood I would like to hear of them. If they consist of the following, they are not anomolies.

The black and white thinking you apply to scripture you'd like to apply to science now. This is what critics of the church do when they set up a straw man argument. It is OK to use your mind Frank. It wasn't given to us as a test. We are actually allowed to exercise it.

http://www.radiocarbon.com/carbon-dating-bomb-carbon.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

[shalamabobbi]

I have been participating on these boards since when we were debating on the AOL boards and we have argued this situation ad nauseum. We will never, ever agree. Why even try? I used to play Dungeons and Dragons years ago (Commander 64...I know...I'm old) and I was stuck on the last scenario of "The Eye of the Beholder" and must have tried at least 50 times to beat the game and for what? A brief endscreen in poor graphics?? I finally figured out how to win...I turned off the game. The only way to win this game is to turn it off and go somewhere else. I doubt this will happen, but humor me for a bit. Thanks.

I agree with you. The board has improved greatly in confining discussions to the topic at hand stated in the OP. What is needed next is a library system where threads are stored so that topics discussed all get added to the appropriate thread. That would eliminate the constant rehash of topics and arguments from both sides of an issue. That way time could be spent instead on any new developments of the topic and added to the existing archival thread.

[Hughes]

I have been participating on these boards since when we were debating on the AOL boards and we have argued this situation ad nauseum. We will never, ever agree. Why even try? I used to play Dungeons and Dragons years ago (Commander 64...I know...I'm old) and I was stuck on the last scenario of "The Eye of the Beholder" and must have tried at least 50 times to beat the game and for what? A brief endscreen in poor graphics?? I finally figured out how to win...I turned off the game. The only way to win this game is to turn it off and go somewhere else. I doubt this will happen, but humor me for a bit. Thanks.

You will win when you stop then. What's the point of telling others to stop?

[Ron Beron]

dup...

Edited September 3, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Ron Beron]

You will win when you stop then. What's the point of telling others to stop?

You're absolutely correct. Therefore, I have won, but it is with the knowledge and experience from seeing us constantly bashing our heads together to no avail that I realized we were getting nowhere. Simply, a word to the wise from one who has been doing this a very long time. Enjoy.

[Ron Beron]

I agree with you. The board has improved greatly in confining discussions to the topic at hand stated in the OP. What is needed next is a library system where threads are stored so that topics discussed all get added to the appropriate thread. That would eliminate the constant rehash of topics and arguments from both sides of an issue. That way time could be spent instead on any new developments of the topic and added to the existing archival thread.

One does exist or at least did exist. I helped put some things on it.

Edit...Yep, still there...http://www.mormondialogue.org/forum/74-the-library/

Edited September 3, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Rob Osborn]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Shell_theorem

A hollow earth would be a case of #2, not #3 (which is the math you appear to be using) would it not, Rob?

PS to shal, I think I've got the right theorem, but it's been 30+ years since my last calculus class even if I did get an A and I am half asleep on some heavy duty insomnia stuff so am rather loopy at the moment (though at least the letters aren't coming off the page anymore and dancing). Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Rob, you are ignoring the problem of the empty shell plus you are ignoring the problem of the mass of the mass further away (in the case of the hollow shell (above and around you as opposed to directly below your feet) from you balancing out any mass that is below your feet. We are attracted to all the mass in the universe, the only difference is that mass that is closer to us has a greater effect upon us due to its proximity. That does not mean other mass has no effect on us, just that depending on the direction of the force, its addition (if it is in the same direction as the closest mass) is too small to add much to the effect or (if in the direction opposite the mass closest) too small to take away much from the effect. Get enough mass and the distance effect is 'overcomed'.

I tried explaining this before but perhaps I wasn't very good at it. Yes of course the other mass around you is a force of attraction, but just because it is there doesn't mean it cancels out the force directly under your feet where you are mostly attracted to because of the close proximaty of that mass. Suppose you look at it this way-

Suppose you were standing inside the earth on it's shell surface. Now start drawing lines around you one bigger than the next. Where is the strongest concentration of mass? It's always directly underneath the feet right? The greatest force of attraction is always held by the largest body one is located closest too.

While the other mass is further away from you, there is much more of it, zeroing out the opposing forces. Remember with the shell, if you are closer to one part of the shell so that its mass's force grows on you, this is canceled out by the increase in mass on the opposite side (think of it visually where an object at the center of a shell has equal mass around it, while an object that has moved close enough to the inner shell that it sits on it is in close contact with a small amount of the shell in front of itself, but has the overwhelming leftover mass of the shell behind it to counterbalance.

Of course on the inside of a hollow earth there is going to be more mass around you than directly beneath you. But do not forget that the strongest attraction forces are those in which is the "closest" which in this case is still the mass right beneath our feet. Sure, there is not as much attraction force all in one general direction as you get on the outside of the shell, but the greatest concentration force of attraction is still directly under your feet.

If I am thinking right, due to the canceling out of the opposing forces due to the masses around you, if you are standing on the inside layer of a hollow earth with your head pointing 'down' to an inner sun, the only mass exerting a noncanceled force upon you would be the inner sun, which means you would fall toward the sun and either go splat or hiss.....

No, in reality, the unner sun doesn't really act upon you as a gravitational force strong enough to pull you in.

Since the inner sun is inside a hollow earth where all parts of the shell's mass are canceled out by other parts of the shell's mass on the opposite side, there is no gravity attaching to the inner sun from the earth and thus no way for it to remain in place.

This is where I like to think of it like magnetism. A mass directly in the center of a hollow sphere is located there by the effects of attraction forces Just as a magnetic ball can be perfectly suspended between two opposing forces of attraction, so too the inner sun mass is held in much the same way. The inner sun, made up of gas particles is held mtually together by attraction to it's own mass. Because of this effect, the outer force of attraction acting upon this one body keeps it suspended always in the center. All of the outward mass (from suns perspective) would act wanting to pull the sun towards it. But, it can't go in any one direction because of the equal force acting upon it in all directions. Thus, it becomes suspended in this manner

[shalamabobbi]

One does exist or at least did exist. I helped put some things on it.

Edit...Yep, still there...http://www.mormondialogue.org/forum/74-the-library/

I did a search on the word "flood" thinking maybe a previous thread would show up from the misc section. Nope, this thread popped up!

Oh well..

Looked at the first few pages under misc and didn't see anything specific. By the third page it looked as though all the threads were locked anyhow. That isn't very useful. If you can't add new information to a thread then a new thread has to be re-opened. Then all the same old arguments are going to get repeated all over again. Tends to wear people out..

[Rob Osborn]

I didn't find this in your article.

The wording here is unfortunate and is probably where you added onto it the idea that the particles originated from under the ice and water. Under the ice and water is earth. These particles would not pass through this material. If they had that much energy the interior environment would be hotter than the surface of the sun(the real sun). And the energy imparted to the ice and water by such an energetic stream of particles would, well..

Try giving this a read. It may help you understand what is happening. Hint: the magnetic field is most concentrated at the poles..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_mirror

There is this in your reference:

The ionosphere is the suspected source not the interior of the planet.

Sound familiar? In other words it is still inconclusive. Reminds me of the solar neutrinos that everyone flapped the mouth about that were supposed to be the mechanism by which radiation changed it's rate of decay. Turned out to be a false measurement issue..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/more-follow-up-on-the-solar-neutrinos-radioactive-decay-story-experimental-falsification/

They get accelerated by the environment, not from a sun hidden in the center of the earth.

***************************************

Your understanding of the physics of gravity is off by 300 years. You could take a college course in physics. Just a suggestion.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

You passed over the physics of such a tiny star and how it would function but that is not surprising. But if you'd care to reply I'd enjoy the entertainment. Thanks.

The discovery of the ion fountain shows that the material is being blown up from the poles. According to hoolow earth theory, the poles are vast channels of circulating water and ice and at the poles there is not a crust or mantle of the earth. Basically- it's a hole. Thus, particles from the inner sun are pushing outwards and blowing out through these polar openings or "channels". Nothing really makes more sense without actually believing that the particles are actually coming from under the water and from that source, something deeper. The question isn't "if" the particles are coming from under the earth surface, it's "what" is the driving force behind or in back of these fountains? It's obviously something inside the earth!

[Rob Osborn]

"For the life of me, I just can't figure out why astronomers and physicists aren't picking up on this idea more. Oh, that's right, their centuries old delusions of gravity get in the way ... pity."

"Well, I'm not buying that, but what if you take the corollary argument and say that all celestial bodies are already naturally occuring Dyson spheres (a fancy way of saying 'hollow'), and hence the gravitational effects we witness are actually attributable to far less matter to begin with (83% to be exact)! ... Then the scientific types can finally balance out their equations and go home happy. Everybody wins."

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/

It seems an incorrect understanding of gravity and acceptance of this theory go hand in hand..

One thing that must be understood here is that we actually have no way of measuring or calculating the actual true mass of the earth. Sure, we can get pretty exact with measuring "relativeness" of two or more bodies and how they compare "mass" wise, but we have no tool to actually measure how much mass our planet actually has against itself (it's actual count of matter and weight according to relative weights and measures). Scientists make general assumptions on the density of mass our planet has. One can assume it is either solid or hollow and it makes no difference- you still have no way of measuring the actual mass. All one can do is state what relationship of mass we have with other celestial bodies. That in no way determines the obvious- whether or not the earth is solid or hollow

[shalamabobbi]

The discovery of the ion fountain shows that the material is being blown up from the poles. According to hoolow earth theory, the poles are vast channels of circulating water and ice and at the poles there is not a crust or mantle of the earth. Basically- it's a hole. Thus, particles from the inner sun are pushing outwards and blowing out through these polar openings or "channels". Nothing really makes more sense without actually believing that the particles are actually coming from under the water and from that source, something deeper. The question isn't "if" the particles are coming from under the earth surface, it's "what" is the driving force behind or in back of these fountains? It's obviously something inside the earth!

I don't know what to say Rob. I could work the calculus problem out for you and post it but I don't think you would understand it.

Calculus is a systematic way of adding up the influence of each tiny bit of matter in a hypothetical shape or structure. In this case a thin spherical shell. When they are all added up the net gravitational force inside a sphere is zero. It does not matter where inside the sphere you are located the result is the same. This is a fact. That you are unaware of it does not change it into a non fact. Wish I could be of more use to you here, but since you don't trust me you aren't going to believe me.

Maybe if you have a close trusted friend who is a good college math student he/she could help you with it.

The particles even if they were coming from an interior sun would not be a means of cooling the interior space anyhow.

And there is no way that you can create a star that size that will function anyhow. You have more problems than you can handle with this one. Good luck..

[Rob Osborn]

I don't know what to say Rob. I could work the calculus problem out for you and post it but I don't think you would understand it.

Calculus is a systematic way of adding up the influence of each tiny bit of matter in a hypothetical shape or structure. In this case a thin spherical shell. When they are all added up the net gravitational force inside a sphere is zero. It does not matter where inside the sphere you are located the result is the same. This is a fact. That you are unaware of it does not change it into a non fact. Wish I could be of more use to you here, but since you don't trust me you aren't going to believe me.

Maybe if you have a close trusted friend who is a good college math student he/she could help you with it.

The particles even if they were coming from an interior sun would not be a means of cooling the interior space anyhow.

And there is no way that you can create a star that size that will function anyhow. You have more problems than you can handle with this one. Good luck..

Math is perfect and correct everytime as long as all the calculations are based upon real numbers with no unknowns. But, herein is the problem- Gravity is a "theory" and thus any real math that is applied to a theory does not mean that just because you add math, it makes the theory true...get my drift?

All we know about gravity is that masses of likeness are attracted to each other. The greater the mass the greater the attraction. We also know that the closer two bodies of like attraction are to each other, the greater the attraction force. Those can be defined as "principles" of the theorim of gravity. Generally, the principles are the "knowns". So, even if one is on the inside of a sphere, he is most greatly attracted by the closest proximaty of mass which would indeed be directly under his feet. The mass clear on the other side of him (other side of the earth in this case) is so far away, it doesn't have much attraction force acting upon him as that which is directly under him. We must also realize that the greater attraction force is held by the greater body, not the lesser body.

[shalamabobbi]

Math is perfect and correct everytime as long as all the calculations are based upon real numbers with no unknowns. But, herein is the problem- Gravity is a "theory" and thus any real math that is applied to a theory does not mean that just because you add math, it makes the theory true...get my drift?

Here are the facts for which Newton's laws were derived to explain. Kepler's laws of planetary motion. These are the results of years of careful observation. They are not theory. They are facts. Newtons laws of motion reproduce those same results and are hence "verified". Applying them to earth bound objects such as ordnance fired from a battleship also verifies those laws. Applying them to the flight path of rockets launched to reach the moon from earth also verifies them. I'm afraid you have quite a bit of experimental evidence weighing against you on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm

http://www.vias.org/physics/bk1_12_03.html

http://mypages.iit.edu/~smile/guests/gsn1-9.htm

[Rob Osborn]

Here are the facts for which Newton's laws were derived to explain. Kepler's laws of planetary motion. These are the results of years of careful observation. They are not theory. They are facts. Newtons laws of motion reproduce those same results and are hence "verified". Applying them to earth bound objects such as ordnance fired from a battleship also verifies those laws. Applying them to the flight path of rockets launched to reach the moon from earth also verifies them. I'm afraid you have quite a bit of experimental evidence weighing against you on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm

http://www.vias.org/physics/bk1_12_03.html

http://mypages.iit.edu/~smile/guests/gsn1-9.htm

I am not arguing the points you listed about gravitational forces as applies to other celestial bodies.

My argument is that based upon what we know of gravity, we have no way of actually measuring the actual known weight of our planet to know the real actual density of it. All we can do, with our yet limited capacities in technology, is determine relativeness mass between celestial bodies. We cannot know at this point if our planet is hollow or solid. All of those links says nothing upon the matter of actually measuring the density of an object to determine it's density of what it actually consists of matter wise without relationship to any other body.

In simpler terms, none of the current theories of gravity explains exactly what celestial speres are- wheter they are hollow or solid. They only relate to each other in mass by relativeness, they say nothing of their actual weight.

[shalamabobbi]

I am not arguing the points you listed about gravitational forces as applies to other celestial bodies.

My argument is that based upon what we know of gravity, we have no way of actually measuring the actual known weight of our planet to know the real actual density of it. All we can do, with our yet limited capacities in technology, is determine relativeness mass between celestial bodies. We cannot know at this point if our planet is hollow or solid. All of those links says nothing upon the matter of actually measuring the density of an object to determine it's density of what it actually consists of matter wise without relationship to any other body.

In simpler terms, none of the current theories of gravity explains exactly what celestial speres are- wheter they are hollow or solid. They only relate to each other in mass by relativeness, they say nothing of their actual weight.

Ok, I gotcha I think. What in the following article do you disagree with?

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Mass.shtml

better add this too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Edited September 3, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[jo1952]

Seismographic data shows strongly that the earth is not hollow and contains very little water in its interior. Try again.

Sorry to use a wikipedia site. Some of the other Russian sites had umm..inappropriate adversting on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

Research

The Kola borehole penetrated about a third of the way through the Baltic continental crust, estimated to be around 35 kilometres (22 mi) deep, reaching rocks of Archaean age (greater than 2.5 billion years old) at the bottom.[7] The project has been a site of extensive geophysical studies. The stated areas of study were the deep structure of the Baltic Shield; seismic discontinuities and the thermal regime in the Earth's crust; the physical and chemical composition of the deep crust and the transition from upper to lower crust; lithospheric geophysics; and to create and develop technologies for deep geophysical study.

To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that the change in seismic velocities was not found at a boundary marking Harold Jeffreys's hypothetical transition from granite to basalt; it was at the bottom of a layer of metamorphic rock that extended from about 5 to 10 kilometers beneath the surface. The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.[8]

Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.[9]

It seems that other deep drilling projects are coming up with the same problem. They can only get so deep before drilling efforts are impaired by water and mud, making it impossible to continue drilling in a straight downward line.

Since Seismographic data is only a theory which shows "strongly that the earth is not hollow and contains very little water in its interior", has no physical evidence that man has been able to dig that far in support of their conclusion, I would offer that the Kola Hole findings put this theory in question. So, as you were kind enough to point out, I will use your very own words: Try again.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Here, here! Far too many people have blind faith in what the scientists say. We have to understand; scientists are not, for the most part, objective.

Excellent on oh so many levels!

jo

[Franktalk]

If you have some *anomolies* that are not understood I would like to hear of them. If they consist of the following, they are not anomolies.

The black and white thinking you apply to scripture you'd like to apply to science now. This is what critics of the church do when they set up a straw man argument. It is OK to use your mind Frank. It wasn't given to us as a test. We are actually allowed to exercise it.

So you think that those C-14 dates on some items are not understood. This is expected. As I said you pick and choose dates based on your own views. Your attitude exposes you. You already have discounted anything I might say because it disagrees with you. To offer data to someone who will not look at it is a waste of time. I have stated that when a process has conflicting results I toss the process as unreliable. You on the other hand sort the data to fit your world view. My position is more reasonable and based on logic.

And yes I do live in a black and white world.

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Once you sort data and results you enter into the world of gray and can be led to places not supported by data. You can become so fixated on one result that you don't resemble the science as defined by itself. I have posted that I think the court magicians of Pharaoh knew more about material science than modern day scientist. I would like to know your opinion on this.

[Franktalk]

We have argued over the flood and have found a range of opinions whether the event even happened or happened local. My position that is was world wide and pretty much as described in scripture is not agreed to by many who hold to man's knowledge of the past. So far we have discussed the flood and evolution in scientific and Biblical terms. So far in Genesis we have the people of the world saying that the Bible is not accurate in describing Adam and the creation process. We also have these same people say that the flood was not world wide and again the Bible is not accurate in describing this event. So in order that we may know the limits of what is accurate or not I have listed a number of Biblical events. I would like each person who posts to tell me if they consider the Bible accurate in describing these events.

A. Exodus 7:10-12 10And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. 11Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 12For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

B. Exodus 15:4 4Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea

C. Numbers 21:9 9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

D. Daniel 3:23-25 23And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. 25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

E. Isaiah 38:8 8Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

F. Joshua 10:13 13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

G. Job 1:16 16While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

I believe all of these happened just as stated. What say you?

[Ron Beron]

I did a search on the word "flood" thinking maybe a previous thread would show up from the misc section. Nope, this thread popped up!

Oh well..

Looked at the first few pages under misc and didn't see anything specific. By the third page it looked as though all the threads were locked anyhow. That isn't very useful. If you can't add new information to a thread then a new thread has to be re-opened. Then all the same old arguments are going to get repeated all over again. Tends to wear people out..

Well, there is this...

and this....

These might help. The material we are covering here is not new ground, but like McDonald's hamburgers they have been processed over and over again.