Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 188 (384704)
02-12-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 6:56 PM


Re: Nothing Empirical
Please read Message 72
I see nothing empirical there Jar: too many assumptions. Until your argument becomes soundly imperical, we have a viable debate.
Bull Buz. You can only make such an assertion by being a liar, willfully ignorant or delusional.
Oetzi is empirical evidence. There are NO assumptions there. To say that is simply a falsehood.
Oetzi is empirical evidence.
The minerals in his teeth could be used to identify where he grew up.
The food he ate is empirical evidence. It was so close to modern samples that every bit of it could be identified.
The pollen found in his clothing, in his gut, in his belongings is empirical evidence. It was so close to modern samples that every bit of it could be identified.
The shoes he wore are empirical evidence. It was so close to modern samples that every bit of it could be identified.
The grasses that he lined his shoes with was so close to modern samples that every bit of it could be identified.
The wounds he received are empirical evidence. There were no indications of any different atmosphere that would have changed how his blood coagulated.
The very bones in his body, size of his lungs, clothing he wore, food he ate, materials he used, all testify to a world, and environment that was very, very similar to today's.
There are no assertions or assumptions in that evidence Buz. There is no debate. The Flood as described in the Bible simply never happened.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 6:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 7:28 PM jar has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 188 (384705)
02-12-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by obvious Child
02-12-2007 4:22 PM


Re: Black Sea Et Al
OC writes:
Except the black sea is hardly the mainstream idea of what occured in Genesis. What you're implying is a very different view of literal genesis.
I'm not trying to argue that the Black Sea had anything to do with Genesis. I said the amount of water for that event may be regarded as evidence for a great flood of some great magnitude. You need to read me more carefully before responding.
OC writes:
......... the numbers don't lie here. How you intend to get around the various mathematical problems of a flood is beyond me.
I've gone into this before in other threads but in all of the layers of the atmosphere and all that could have changed it's just too vast to be able to come to any concrete conclusion on the heat factor.
OC writes:
Because? The atmosphere plays a large role in habitats and the survival of creatures. As genesis would argue no evolution occured, these species therefore couldn't have changed, thus the atmosphere which supported them wouldn't have either. Besides that's not my point. Baumgardner's idea on plate tetonics deals little to nothing with the atmosphere.
1. You are aware of micro-evo, I assume.
2. Baumgardner is not the last word on anything though I agree with much of what he claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2007 4:22 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2007 11:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 78 of 188 (384706)
02-12-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Canopy
Until someone empirically refutes the canopy hypothesis it has not been empirically falsified
Until someone provides evidence to support the canopy hypothesis it remains bullshit.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 6:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 7:23 PM DrJones* has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 188 (384707)
02-12-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 6:52 PM


The Genesis Noahic Flood is a lie.
Nor has it been empirically proven that those millions of sea life fossils in the high Rockies et al did not get there via Genesis flood tectonics.
Not true Buz, simply another false statement from you.
The fact is that sea shells are found IN, not ON, mountain tops. The shells are within the matrix. They could not have been washed into the very rock itself by any flood.
Anyone who promotes a World-wide flood is either lying, willfully ignorant or delusional.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 6:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2007 12:50 PM jar has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 80 of 188 (384709)
02-12-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 6:52 PM


Re: Genesis Flood Evidence
science has yet to prove that the amount of water to do the Black Sea thing did not affect the whole planet.
Seeing as there is evidence of only the Black Sea area being flooded and no evidence for a global flood I'd say that you continue to be full of it.
Nor has it been empirically proven that those millions of sea life fossils in the high Rockies et al did not get there via Genesis flood tectonics.
Proven? no, but as you have been told multiple times, science doesn't prove anything. We have evidence to support the current geological theories and nothing to support the biblical bullshit.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 6:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 81 of 188 (384711)
02-12-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 6:52 PM


Re: Genesis Flood Evidence
Come on Buz, you know that the Black Sea Flood was far slower than Noah's flood allegedly was and covered only a very restricted area. It is the result of infilling from the Bosphorous so it can't have flooded anywhere else much. It's all sea water coming in. Even in the fastest estimates it would take a yea rjust to fill the Black Sea. And that estimate has been downgraded once by Ryan and Pitman and even that appears to be wrong.
Further investigation indicates that research IS ongoing, according to Wikipedia and has strongly turned against Ryan and Pitman's ideas. A new book - a scientific book, not a ppular treatment was apparently published this year (The Black Sea Flood Question: Changes in Coastline, Climate and Human Settlement (Springer, 2007, 971 pages) ISBN-10 1-4020-4774-6). (Doubtless it is hideously expensive, but might be found in a university library).
The 2002 GSA paper is freely available online.
Many of our observations are entirely incompatible with a late catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea, a circumstance that provides sufficient grounds to discard this hypothesis, following accepted scientific methodology.
Even most fundamentalists recognise that the Black Sea Flood story - even that once proposed by Ryan and Pitman - is nothing like Noah's Ark. Even people who share your belief in the Noah's Ark story see that you are quite simply wrong to argue that this is any help to your beliefs.
So we have a widely discredited hypothesis that doesn't even fit with your beliefs. And you call that evidence ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 6:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 7:41 PM PaulK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 188 (384714)
02-12-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by DrJones*
02-12-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Canopy
Call it what you wish. The fact remains that it's not empirically refuted.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DrJones*, posted 02-12-2007 7:14 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by DrJones*, posted 02-12-2007 7:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 83 of 188 (384715)
02-12-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Canopy
The fact remains that it's not empirically refuted.
Seeing as it has yet to be empirically supported it doesn't need to be refuted, it's bullshit until shown otherwise.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 7:23 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 188 (384716)
02-12-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
02-12-2007 7:13 PM


Re: Nothing Empirical
I suggest interested folks go to your link and read Faith's responses. (I miss the dear woman.) I think she did quite a sufficient job regardless of the responses to her which were, again, not empirical refutes.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 02-12-2007 7:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 02-12-2007 7:45 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 88 by DrJones*, posted 02-12-2007 8:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 188 (384718)
02-12-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
02-12-2007 7:20 PM


Re: Genesis Flood Evidence
PaulK writes:
So we have a widely discredited hypothesis that doesn't even fit with your beliefs. And you call that evidence ?
1. The first stages of the flooding likely had somewhat diluted seawater.
2. Likely sealife was scattered via the flood to include the Black Sea.
3. How can we be positive it took a year to flood Black Sea?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2007 7:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2007 2:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 188 (384719)
02-12-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 7:28 PM


Re: Nothing Empirical
I suggest interested folks go to your link and read Faith's responses. (I miss the dear woman.) I think she did quite a sufficient job regardless of the responses to her which were, again, not empirical refutes.
LOL
You are free to believe anything Buz but her responses were simply denial of the Facts.
LOL
The FACT is Buz, the world-wide flood as described in the Bible never happened. Anyone who asserts that it did is simply lying, willfully ignorant or delusional.
A Pre-Flood Atmospheric Canopy is simply nonsense. Anyone who believes in such nonsense is simply a liar, willfully ignorant or delusional.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 7:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 10:53 PM jar has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 87 of 188 (384725)
02-12-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Canopy
buzzsaw
The vapour canopy theory is that the Earth’s atmosphere was surrounded by a water vapour blanket that collapsed at the onset of the Flood.
Water vapour can only exist in the atmosphere as a result of the evaporation of water which requires a measureable amount of heat energy in order to accomplish such. The measurement is specifically 2260 kilojoules per kilogram. Since this immense vapour canopy exists in the atmosphere at the time frame of Noah and is purported to have fallen to the earth as a rainfall that is recorded in the bible we can calculate just how much heat energy must be released into the atmosphere in order for the vapour canopy to "freeze" back to the liquid state that constitutes rainfall Buz old boy.
Now if you can find some explanation of the volume that the vapour canopy occupied we can give you precise figures to help you see what the consequences of this idea involve.
To make it easy you can even go and find a figure in pounds and not kilograms. I await your response.

"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 6:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 02-12-2007 9:51 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 10:58 PM sidelined has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 88 of 188 (384730)
02-12-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 7:28 PM


Re: Nothing Empirical
I think she did quite a sufficient job regardless of the responses to her which were, again, not empirical refutes.
Faith's posts consisted of the fingers-in-her-ears-head-in-the-sand willfull ignorance so typical of religious fundamentalists. Such gems like:
I just don't accept radiocarbon dating
but no way to know that I can see since radiocarbon dating is as good as wild guessing.
This one is great, she admits she's being willfully ignorant:
I don't accept carbon dating, never have. It proves nothing. I have said, however, that I don't understand it well enough to discuss it and will concede the point when the discussion gets technical.
the responses to her which were, again, not empirical refutes
Why would people need to empirically refute her posts? It was her job to refute the evidence given to her with something more substantial than "radiocarbon dating is wrong cause I say so".
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 7:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 11:11 PM DrJones* has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 89 of 188 (384757)
02-12-2007 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by sidelined
02-12-2007 8:06 PM


Re: Canopy
Even the Institute for Creation Research admits there's no possibility of a significant propose vapor canopy; in SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES Vardiman and Bousselot arbitrarily assume optimum values for a whole bunch of parameters such as albedo, and conclude that you might get as much as 2 meters of water into the atmosphere without knocking off everybody. Yet many creationists still push the vapor canopy, or even its more-ludicrous stepsibling the orbiting ice canopy. The gullibility is incredible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by sidelined, posted 02-12-2007 8:06 PM sidelined has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 90 of 188 (384760)
02-12-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
02-12-2007 6:52 PM


Re: Genesis Flood Evidence
All I'm saying is that any evidence, regardless of quantity which lends support to Biblical flood is evidence.
Evidence for a concept is not sufficient to render it credible when there is evidence that refutes it that is not addressed.
There is evidence that the sun orbits the earth - you can see it every day. This is not sufficient to render a geocentric model of the solar system and universe credible, because there is evidence that refutes it.
No amount of evidence for a geocentric earth will make it a valid concept without addressing the evidence that refutes this concept.
No amount of evidence for a biblical flood will make it a valid concept without addressing the evidence that refutes this concept.
Ignoring the evidence that refutes a position is not faith, nor it is a matter of a "different interpretation" - it is a matter of denial of evidence that refutes the concept:
de·lu·sion -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
The question is not whether delusion is involved, but what level of delusion is involved.
By the same token that you folks are chiding me, science has yet to prove that the amount of water to do the Black Sea thing did not affect the whole planet.
There is no evidence of a contemporaneous flood of all parts at one point in time. This gets into dating arguments which can be addressed elsewhere (Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) is a place to start). This also deals with denial of evidence that refutes a young earth model.
Conspiracy theories on why Ballard has not pursued further research are inconsequential when it would be possible for ICR or some other corporate creationist propaganda site to fund some real research (for once).
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 6:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2007 11:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024