|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024