1. You must have missed my point about a hypothetical canopy model skewing the dating methodology.
You never provided the mechanism that would skew dating, Buz, you simply proposed that a canopy could do so. That doesn't work. You may as well say "my bicycle could cause rain." It's a bare assertion that frankly looks completely loony. The presence of water in the atmosphere has nothing whatsoever to do with radiological decay rates.
At the amounts you're talking, of course, it would crush all life under overwhelming pressure, and blot out the Sun.
I note that you completely ignored those points.
2. You must have missed my points about a two flood model and all of the possibilities and unknowns relative to that model.
A two flood model is neither supported by the scriptures nor makes your problems any easier. The problems with energy levels, age, nd amount of water are orders of magnitude greater than you seem to believe them to be.
3. The Mt St Helens event models some aspects of the ancient floods, first the flooded earth after which heated evaporation as well as other moving on the waters by the Holy Spirit, God's on the job worker occured. Of course, one must factor in the emensity of the ancient ones and the millenia of time lapse since for other factors to weigh into the model.
How does Mt St Helens in any way model a flood? As I recall, there was no water involved, as is typically the case with volcanic eruptions.
And the holy spirit? Miracles? Buz, if you want to explain the flood via miracles you can feel free to do so. We can't even argue against you except that such beliefs would violate parsimony. But since you're looking for rational, objective evidence of a flood, miracles don't really fit in.
4. Imo you're too anxious to render another's POV blatantly false when you don't have all the answers yourself.
This thread isn't about my position, Buz. It;s not about modern geology. it's about flood geology. Even assuming there are gigantic holes in modern geology as you imply (and there are not), proving modern geology wrong still wouldn't prove your model to be correct. Thats another one of those false dilemmas you love so much, Buz.
So since this thread is about "100 categories of evidence against noah's flood," I'd say rendering the noachian position (ie, yours) blatantly false would be the entire point of the goddamned thread.
So. Are you going to actually provide some evidence to back up your assertions? Perhaps a mechanism that would explain how your outlandish ideas could produce the results you claim they can?
Or will you continue to ignore rebuttal after rebuttal and focus on how other people make you feel bad?
One of those belongs on a debate forum. The other belongs in Jr. High.
Imo you're too anxious to render another's POV blatantly false when you don't have all the answers yourself.
Well. You got the blatantly false bit right.
Perhaps you'd like to offer an example of something "we" don't have the answer to?
Seeing as how you seem to duck and cover at the mere mention of real evidence:
I've made my points and put all the time I can afford into responses to you. Nothing I say is going to change you and vise versa.
Gotta run now, Rahvin but in the meantime, think shallow oceans an smoother earth surface pre-flood and much deeper oceans and irregular surface post flood. Also don't forget the subterain and the ice caps at the poles as well as the huge tundra, etc.
I've been out of town most of today and am quite busy doing some spring work outside during this window of nice weather here in upstate NY. Please bear with me until I can get back to responding to those who addressed the specifics of the link, either directly or to my statements regarding it.
Would you like to add anything substantive to the conversation or will you bow out with yet another excuse?
You are leaving out some critical things. First, as far as energy and the improbability of the Ark's survival, we see God directly intervening in the story and so it would be quite easy for that to occur.
The second area, more fruitful to discuss, is whether the Flood would leave evidence in the earth and whether we see that, but to suggest there wasn't enough water or that it couldn't happen is a poor approach because we are dealing with God. So if you are going to challenge the story, you must do so accepting it first and then seeing if the story fits. Merely insisting God cannot be an agent doesn't work. Heck, Noah didn't even gather the animals, nor control them.
I don't know if Noah's Flood, so to speak, was regional or global. I am not certain the text tells us, but I think YECs attempt to discuss the evidence of the geologic column in the context of the Flood is admirable. I see problems with their analysis, but equally see problems with evo analysis. Certainly, we do see at times whole herds or groups of creatures seemingly buried together.
So for me, I remain unconvinced it was a global flood, but unconvinced of evo hypotheses as well.
There in a few paragraphs is not only the primary reason for this forum but also the very admission and reason why religion should not replace science in public education, especially classes on science itself.
You yourself just admitted that in order for the Noah Flood story to work, unexplainable miracles are required. The invoking of unexplainable miracles is outside the areas of study common to all sciences, be they physical, biological, or social. In fact the only proper academic areas where such miracles should be discussed are in mythology or religion.
In addition, the invoking of miracles in describing the natural world does nothing to distinguish between the validity of this or that belief system, all are made equally beyond rational comprehension and discussion.
In other words, the demand that miraculous explanations be seriously considered as an alternative or even replace scientific methods in areas of science means the end of science education, plain and simple.
Also, I believe this is a science thread, which precludes arguing on behalf of miracles in debating the 100 categories.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
You yourself just admitted that in order for the Noah Flood story to work, unexplainable miracles are required.
Who said that miracles are unexplainable?
Moreover, all I was doing is correcting the false premise that somehow a story with God as an active agent cannot be considered on it's face and somehow must be true without God as an active agent. Quite simply, that is an absurd fallacy which attempts to win the argument by definition rather than facts.
As far as science education, it's pretty clear the evidence is in favor of the existence of a Creator. Seems as if you believe we must disbelieve the evidence if it leads to acceptance of a Creator.
I'd like to echo Adminnemooseus's request that people propose more narrowly focused topics over at Proposed New Topics. There seems to be interest in discussing at least a couple of the items from the list.