Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 46 of 320 (565415)
06-16-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Drosophilla
06-16-2010 4:32 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Frankly I find it embarrassing to read the arguments often put over on this (and other) forums. Sometimes the level of basic factual knowledge is so low that my daughters in primary school (5 years ago since they were there though) knew more than they did! I often wonder if some of them ever have done even basic science....certainly a lot of them show total contempt for the subject....
On another website I was told, with great confidence, that evolution was impossible. It violated the Second Law of Thermal Documents!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Drosophilla, posted 06-16-2010 4:32 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 06-16-2010 5:35 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 65 by Drosophilla, posted 06-20-2010 6:35 AM Coyote has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(5)
Message 47 of 320 (565427)
06-16-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Coyote
06-16-2010 4:41 PM


Re: Back to the basics
It violated the Second Law of Thermal Documents!
Do you suppose they thought the ToE wasn't supported by the fax?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 4:41 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jallen04, posted 06-18-2010 1:46 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 48 of 320 (565572)
06-18-2010 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Drosophilla
06-16-2010 4:32 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Drosophilla
Thanks to you and the other for replying to my questions.
One last thought for those that disagree....you all have skills in the work area you are engaged in. What would you say if I argued from a total amateur in your work areas, getting every fact wrong or twisted and refused to listen to what you were trying to tell me? Would you think I was a tosser......you'd have every right to think so!
Of course, I understand and share your frustration. However, I don't think that pontificating on subjects one is completely ignorant about, and refusing to listen to expert opinion, is not a charcteristic unique to Creationists. Some of the shit I hear people talking about kinds of stuff, with an absolute certainty they have no right to adopt, is amazing. You should have heard the things my taxi driver said the other night talking about the World Cup. He made some the Yanks on this site sound quite knowledgeable about the game!
Anyway, I think the mistake on these forums is often to allow the topic to be too wide ranging (as in this case). It gives the Creationist too many escape routes. Just when you put them straight on one thing, they say "oh, well, what about ...." and deflect the argument to another area. This goes on and on indefinitely until people lose interest. That's why I'm surprised the OP was accepted in this case. I think we should all work to keep any technical/scientific debates to a very specific topic. It will also help avoid going over the same subjects over and over again.
Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : correction: NOT a characteristic unique to creationists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Drosophilla, posted 06-16-2010 4:32 PM Drosophilla has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 49 of 320 (565626)
06-18-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
06-16-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
The problem is that we don't find that evidence. It simply is not there.
At the time of the Genesis flood according to the text all land mass was in one place and all water was in one place. Similiar to my Avatar.
Moses writes:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
There is no mention of a dividing of the land mass until Genesis 10:25 when it tells us the Earth was divided in the days of Peleg.
Peleg was born 100 years after the flood. He lived to be 239 years old. If those numbers are correct The division of the land mass could have taken place any time during his life time.
So according to the Bible account the land mass was all in one place when the flood took place. The land mass was divided somewhere from 100 to 329 years after the flood.
With the land mass all in one place at the time of the flood and then being divided as it is today what would you expect to find in your search for a global flood?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 4:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Rahvin, posted 06-18-2010 1:20 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2010 1:31 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 53 by Woodsy, posted 06-18-2010 2:21 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 06-18-2010 4:02 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 67 by menes777, posted 08-05-2010 4:10 PM ICANT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 50 of 320 (565628)
06-18-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
06-18-2010 1:01 PM


Re: Back to the basics
With the land mass all in one place at the time of the flood and then being divided as it is today what would you expect to find in your search for a global flood?
God Bless,
Far more important is what you would not expect to find.
Your hypothesis (that all land and water were concentrated in a Pangaea supercontinent and then divided up into the land masses we see today) predicts that we should see multiple continents. We see that today - your hypothesis is accurate at least in that regard.
But what does your model predict that we should not find? Your hypothesis states that the division of land mass took place "at some time" between 100 to 329 years after a global flood. That means that, at most, the division of land mass took 229 years. What should we expect to not find given the predictions of your hypothesis, ICANT, and why? Remember, if your hypothesis equally explains any and all possible observations, it's worthless and conveys zero knowledge. We have to know what your hypothesis cannot explain in order to test its accuracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 1:01 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 3:28 PM Rahvin has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 51 of 320 (565629)
06-18-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
06-18-2010 1:01 PM


Re: Back to the basics
What you are describing to me is your religious belief. Unfortunately, it does not coincide with the scientific evidence.
The last time all the land masses were together, as in your avatar, was about 250 million years ago.
There were no people cavorting about 250 million years ago. The first dinosaurs were just getting underway.
Biblical scholars place the global flood about 4,350 years ago, so your timing is off there as well, by several orders of magnitude.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 1:01 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 3:32 PM Coyote has replied

jallen04
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 52 of 320 (565631)
06-18-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by subbie
06-16-2010 5:35 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Do you suppose they thought the ToE wasn't supported by the fax?
Apparently God uses an ink jet.
Edited by jallen04, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 06-16-2010 5:35 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 06-18-2010 3:18 PM jallen04 has seen this message but not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


(1)
Message 53 of 320 (565634)
06-18-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
06-18-2010 1:01 PM


Re: Back to the basics
So according to the Bible account the land mass was all in one place when the flood took place. The land mass was divided somewhere from 100 to 329 years after the flood.
With the land mass all in one place at the time of the flood and then being divided as it is today what would you expect to find in your search for a global flood?
Why bother with this?
If you cannot answer Coyote's observations about lack of global discontinuities in the time period of the flood, no other arguments of any kind are of any use to you.
Lack of evidence of discontinuities is a show-stopper! No amount of weaseling around with scripture will help you at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 1:01 PM ICANT has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 54 of 320 (565641)
06-18-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jallen04
06-18-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Apparently God uses an ink jet.
No, obviously impact printing. What with all that all that OT smiting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jallen04, posted 06-18-2010 1:46 PM jallen04 has seen this message but not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 55 of 320 (565642)
06-18-2010 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rahvin
06-18-2010 1:20 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
We have to know what your hypothesis cannot explain in order to test its accuracy.
I don't have a hypothesis.
I had this question for Coyote. If you care to answer the question please do.
ICANT writes:
So according to the Bible account the land mass was all in one place when the flood took place. The land mass was divided somewhere from 100 to 329 years after the flood.
With the land mass all in one place at the time of the flood and then being divided as it is today what would you expect to find in your search for a global flood?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rahvin, posted 06-18-2010 1:20 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 06-18-2010 4:53 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 64 by Kitsune, posted 06-19-2010 10:46 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 56 of 320 (565643)
06-18-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coyote
06-18-2010 1:31 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Hi Coyote,
Thanks for the reply but rather than your sermon I would like to have had an answer to the question.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2010 1:31 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2010 9:10 PM ICANT has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 57 of 320 (565644)
06-18-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
06-18-2010 1:01 PM


Re: Back to the basics
With the land mass all in one place at the time of the flood and then being divided as it is today what would you expect to find in your search for a global flood?
Ocean-laid sediments worldwide, all of the same Fludde age, that included human fossils or artifacts. It would, of necessity, be young enough sediment to include humans, as the Fludde was designed to wash them away.
You would also expect to find evidence of continents scooting around in Peleg's Days, say 5000 years ago or so. Evidence like, perhaps, the entire crust of the earth still being molten, and the sediments mentioned above still being lava instead of sediment.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 1:01 PM ICANT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 58 of 320 (565648)
06-18-2010 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
06-18-2010 3:28 PM


Re: Back to the basics
I don't have a hypothesis.
Yes you do:
So according to the Bible account the land mass was all in one place when the flood took place. The land mass was divided somewhere from 100 to 329 years after the flood.
That's your hypothesis. You assert that the Bible claims that all land mass was conjoined into a single supercontinent like the Pangaea picture in your foum avatar, and that the supercontinent broke up into the separate land masses we observe today over a 229-year time period several thousand years ago. You further assert that the Bible's claim is an accurate description of events which happened in the real world, and are neither allegory nor pure fiction.
Is that not the case?
We can find observations which support that hypothesis. We can observe for instance that the continents appear to have all been conjoined at some point in the past, and that they have since broken up into separate land masses.
But the strength of any hypothesis is not what is can explain, but rather what it cannot. Asking Coyote what he would expect to find is not the best question to test the accuracy of your hypothesis. Yes, you do need observations that support your hypothesis. The problem is that by only looking for confirmational evidence, you can gain significant support for almost any hypothesis - I could prove that I have the ability to predict cards drawn from a deck, for instance, if the only observations we consider are my successful results.
The best question to test the accuracy of a hypothesis is "what observation would not be explained by my hypothesis?" It doesn't have to be an outright falsification, it can simply be an observation that wouldn't quite fit (a hypothesis is almost never "right" or "wrong" - it's usually a degree of accuracy, and evidence slightly against a hypothesis simply means it's a little less accurate than before).
So again, ICANT - given your hypothesis:
according to the Bible account the land mass was all in one place when the flood took place. The land mass was divided somewhere from 100 to 329 years after the flood
what would your hypothesis not be able to explain? What observation could we potentially make that would reduce support for that hypothesis? Just as importantly, why would that observation reduce support for your hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 3:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 11:09 PM Rahvin has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 59 of 320 (565659)
06-18-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ICANT
06-18-2010 3:32 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Thanks for the reply but rather than your sermon I would like to have had an answer to the question.
Why should I address an hypothetical?
There is no scientific evidence for the scenario you suggest. Rather, it is contradicted by all the evidence. Why even consider it?
What I see you doing is this: there is no evidence for the flood 4,350 years ago so you make up some other date for the flood. If it is shown that there is no evidence at that date, you come up with still another date.
Sorry, I'm not going to play that game.
The flood is a religious belief that has been disproved by the scientific evidence. That was done just about 200 years ago, and the case against the flood has grown much stronger since then. So much so that even my own archaeological investigations disprove it.
I understand why you have to believe in it, but don't pretend it is supported by scientific evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 3:32 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 60 of 320 (565670)
06-18-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rahvin
06-18-2010 4:53 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
So according to the Bible account the land mass was all in one place when the flood took place. The land mass was divided somewhere from 100 to 329 years after the flood.
That's your hypothesis.
That is not my hypothesis. That is what the Bible says.
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Land in one place, water in one place.
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
Earth was divided.
Now I did do a little research and found out when Peleg lived and died.
Now if this was my hypothesis I would say that with the flood occurring prior to the breaking up of the land mass you would find zero support for a global flood.
I know you don't think it is possible that it could happen like the Bible says as we have discussed this in the past.
I can believe that it did just as easily as you believe the universe just is when I ask you where it came from.
Rahvin writes:
Asking Coyote what he would expect to find is not the best question to test the accuracy of your hypothesis.
I was asking because he seems so adamant that he knows what he would find if the flood took place as the Bible says.
Assuming that he did seems to have been a bad assumption on my part.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 06-18-2010 4:53 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2010 11:40 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 62 by Rahvin, posted 06-19-2010 12:09 AM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024