Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
38 online now:
GDR, jar, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric (5 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,068 Year: 19,104/19,786 Month: 1,524/1,705 Week: 330/446 Day: 69/59 Hour: 1/7

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 91 of 96 (463645)
04-18-2008 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
04-18-2008 9:22 PM

Re: Smooth earth!
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.

Whoa, what?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2008 9:22 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 933 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007

Message 92 of 96 (463647)
04-18-2008 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
04-18-2008 9:22 PM

Re: Smooth earth!
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:

Message 28.

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.

Message 39.

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.

Message 57.

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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2008 9:22 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 93 of 96 (463676)
04-19-2008 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by randman
04-18-2008 3:55 PM

The Exact Point Made Explicit
randman writes:

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 3:55 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 04-19-2008 12:42 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Suspended Member (Idle past 3191 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005

Message 94 of 96 (463678)
04-19-2008 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by anglagard
04-19-2008 12:37 AM

Re: The Exact Point Made Explicit
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by anglagard, posted 04-19-2008 12:37 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Posts: 3898
Joined: 09-26-2002

Message 95 of 96 (463683)
04-19-2008 1:18 AM

This topic is a massive violation of forum rule 3 - Closing soon
Forum Rules.

Rule 3:

When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.

This topic started as a 2 member "Great Debate". As such I find the exception to rule 3 to be acceptable. But now that the topic is open to all, it is no longer acceptable.

At no sooner than 15 minutes from now, I am going to close this topic. I someone wants to debate a much more restricted number of those 100 categories, they should propose a new topic.

No replies to this message, other than by e-mail.


Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002

Message 96 of 96 (463717)
04-19-2008 10:33 AM

Please Propose More Narrowly Focused Topics
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.

EvC Forum Director

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019