Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
27 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 196 of 432 (645914)
12-31-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Coragyps
12-30-2011 5:26 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
quote:
Where is your evidence for what conditions were "in Noah's day?" I'll take scripture, even, as that is all you've got.

You guys keep asking for evidence for claims when it is ridiculous to do so considering the context of what we are doing. Do you give evidence for what you post? No, you don't. Quit asking me for it if you are unwilling to do the same. I am posing ideas , and that is all. I thought science was supposed to be all about ideas and questioning old suppositions. I guess that isn't the case when it comes to creationism. I can give your reasons for what the conditions were in noah's day and you give reasons for why you think noah's flood was impossible. That is reasonable for both of us. Giving evidence for something which no longer exists is insane and it makes me wonder why you ask for the impossible. I give the above conditions as a possible scenario that would make noah's flood a possibility. Since the earth has erased all shred of that year, save today's oceans, it is insane to give evidence for its existence. The scripture give very limited information and is not heavy on details. You guys pick apart a "sunday school" version of it that isn't what really happened and think you can claim victory. The bible will not state the specific conditions I mentioned but it doesn't rule any of them out. To insist that the bible give modern man a detailed scientific list of everything that went down that year is laughable. God left the details for his followers to fill in.

quote:
Except I don't remember what verse says there's five miles of water beneath the crust. Or the one that says there is a crust. A simple "Genesis xx:yy" formal will be fine.

Do you really think God is going to write down all the scientific details that modern man is familar with just to satisfy all the atheist crybabies? Sorry, but you are a complete idiot if you think so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Coragyps, posted 12-30-2011 5:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by DrJones*, posted 12-31-2011 4:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 12-31-2011 4:39 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 197 of 432 (645915)
12-31-2011 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 3:50 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
I thought science was supposed to be all about ideas and questioning old suppositions.

Science is also about evidence. I can have the idea that the earth is supported on the back of an infinitely tall pile of turtles but its as meaningless an idea as your "possibilities" without any evidence to back it up.

Giving evidence for something which no longer exists is insane

False. We have evidence for lots of things that no longer exist.

You guys pick apart a "sunday school" version of it that isn't what really happened and think you can claim victory.

How do you know "what really happened" if:
a. you have no evidence for it, and in fact deem evidence for it to be impossible to find
2. by your own admission your own mythology doesn't describe "what really happened"

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 3:50 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 432 (645916)
12-31-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 3:37 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
If you do this for several different time periods and find that deposition rates were far slower in the distant past and gradually grew faster as the time period progressed toward today, then you have evidence for accelerated nuclear today in the past, in my opinion.

If I do this?

1) You haven't said that the evidence you propose actually exists, so this line of reasoning does not work.

2) How are decreased deposition rates in the past evidence of accelerated nuclear decay rates in the past? Why would not they instead be merely evidence of decreased deposition rates?

3) If your proposal is that geological processes proceed at constant rates, then surely we must accept that geological features took millions or even billions of years to form. Is that really your argument?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 3:37 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 199 of 432 (645917)
12-31-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 3:37 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
The Biblical Flood stories are myths and the Biblical Flood has been absolutely refuted. Anyone claiming that the Biblical Flood begins by describing something that didn't happen.

That is simply fact.

It makes their position difficult but does present a possibility if they were very good at science of at least presenting an interesting fantasy. Unfortunately so far no one has ever presented anything that can get by someone who has completed an elementary school general science class.

If you are going to make some claim about so imagined "pre-flood" earth, then you need to present some evidence of that "pre-flood" earth.

If you are going to make some claim of a recent heavy bombardment, then you need to present some evidence of a recent heavy bombardment.

If you are going to make a claim of "fountains of the deep", then you need to present some evidence of "fountains of the deep".

But remember at the end, you are still just playing games of fantasy. Don't expect anyone to take the Biblical Flood myths seriously since the Biblical Flood has been absolutely refuted.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 3:37 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20105
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 200 of 432 (645918)
12-31-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 3:50 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
I think the discussion has gotten a bit off track. All this thread is asking is for creationists to provide their explanations of where the flood waters came from, and where they receded to.

Some in this thread keep asking for evidence, but evidence isn't what this thread is about. The purpose is instead to explore the reasonableness of the explanations from a scientific standpoint without regard to whether there is any evidence that the particulars of the explanations are things that ever happened.

So what is *your* explanation for where the flood waters came from and where they went afterwards?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 3:50 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2011 5:15 PM Percy has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 432 (645924)
12-31-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
12-31-2011 4:39 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
Some in this thread keep asking for evidence, but evidence isn't what this thread is about. The purpose is instead to explore the reasonableness of the explanations from a scientific standpoint

I don't get it. Nothing I read in the OP suggests that this thread is different from any other. And, why is it unreasonable to discuss or ask for evidence as a method of investigating reasonableness of an explanation, particularly if a process is proposed which has never been observed to actually occur?

If asking for evidence is inappropriate, why is this thread here instead of someplace where Buzsaw can participate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 12-31-2011 4:39 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 6:06 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 12-31-2011 9:18 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 202 of 432 (645931)
12-31-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by NoNukes
12-31-2011 5:15 PM


The point of the thread
I proposed this thread with a specific purpose in mind. It's always been pointless asking for evidence from floodists because it's never forthcoming, so I decided to instead ask for details of their models and then examine those models for scientific validity.

If they choose to say that God did it using miracles, then that's fine, but they then lose the chance to claim any scientific support for their model.

The problem comes when they try to construct natural explanations as to how the flood happened. For example, we now have been given a model which involves heavy asteroid impacts immediately prior to the flood which the proposer says would wipe out all life on earth but not the ark. Surely with all the heat generated, the ark would be incinerated, being as it's made of wood? Its these inconsistencies which I hoped this thread would highlight.

So, just for this thread, the onus is on non-floodists to show floodists why their proposed models won't work. Yes, it's a bit back to front, but we've tried the other way to no avail. They can't or won't provide scientific evidence which supports their models. On the other hand, science can show why the models they propose are flawed.

Of course, this depends on them providing details of their proposed models. If they won't do that then they have no place in this thread which is specifically asking them to provide details so that the models can be examined scientifically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2011 5:15 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2011 7:40 PM Trixie has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 432 (645941)
12-31-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Show us the numbers!!
You think the ideas are nonsense? It is up to you to tell me why.

Sure thing. Your ideas are nonsense because they are too vague and incoherent to constitute a testable hypothesis. In the famous words of Wolfgang Pauli, your ideas are not right --- they're not even wrong.

Let us know when you've fixed this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 2:38 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 432 (645943)
12-31-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Trixie
12-31-2011 6:06 PM


Re: The point of the thread
so I decided to instead ask for details of their models and then examine those models for scientific validity.

So if a proposed model includes a meteor bombardment that produces effect X, why wouldn't evaluating whether a meteor could produce effect X require evidence, even if we accept without evidence that the meteor bombardment did occur?

In this case, the idea that a meteor strike would cause effects that wouldn't be survived by merely floating in a boat has been flatly denied, and apparently pursuing that denial cannot include any request for evidence or even for a logical defense. In my view that's nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 6:06 PM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 8:18 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 205 of 432 (645945)
12-31-2011 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by NoNukes
12-31-2011 7:40 PM


Re: The point of the thread
If a reason has been given as to why the ark wouldn't be incinerated, then you can ask for an explanation. Requests for evidence supporting the explanation will not be forthcoming since there isn't any. See, that's the problem, asking for evidence in support of some of these hairbrained ideas is a dead end path. There is no evidence, however the stock in trade answers will trotted out as if they were evidence. Then when told that their evidence isn't evidence, accusations fly that evidence is being ignored.

This approach lets floodists showcase their models and the holes in those models can the be pointed out. If a meteor bombardment is claimed to have produced effect X it's up to science to show that, no, it wouldn't and here's why. More and more claims are made which are entirely inconsistent with science and that's what I wanted this thread to point out.

Insead of asking floodists to apply science to their models, I'm asking that scientists apply science to floodists models. After all, if floodists knew much about science and how to apply it in the first place they wouldn't be floodists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2011 7:40 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2012 12:15 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20105
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 206 of 432 (645951)
12-31-2011 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by NoNukes
12-31-2011 5:15 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
NoNukes writes:

I don't get it. Nothing I read in the OP suggests that this thread is different from any other.

From my reply to the OP in Message 2:

Percy in Message 2 writes:

Assuming you would like evidence for where the water came from and where it went, I don't think this would be off-topic for the Evidence for a recent flood thread.

Trixie replied like this and I promoted the thread:

Trixie in Message 3 writes:

It's not so much asking for evidence as asking for the "models" proposed to be examined for plausibility with regard to current science.

As I explained in Message 200, "The purpose is instead to explore the reasonableness of the explanations from a scientific standpoint without regard to whether there is any evidence that the particulars of the explanations are things that ever happened."

So the creationists are under no obligation to provide evidence that there was ever a global flood or fountains of the deep or massive meteor strikes or whatever else they want to claim happened. The question being addressed is whether the proposals are scientifically possible, and for that purpose evidence may be employed as much as desired.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2011 5:15 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 432 (645955)
01-01-2012 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Trixie
12-31-2011 8:18 PM


Re: The point of the thread
More and more claims are made which are entirely inconsistent with science and that's what I wanted this thread to point out.

That's fine. I'm going to decline to participate further in the discussion, which I expect should not be of any major consequence. In my opinion it would be quite easy to produce a scenario for which there is no scientific evidence against the scenario, and also no credible reason to believe that such a scenario had ever occurred.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 8:18 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 01-01-2012 9:31 AM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 208 of 432 (645978)
01-01-2012 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by NoNukes
01-01-2012 12:15 AM


Re: The point of the thread
In my opinion it would be quite easy to produce a scenario for which there is no scientific evidence against the scenario, and also no credible reason to believe that such a scenario had ever occurred.

I for one would love to see a description of a scenario for either of the Biblical Flood stories where there is no scientific evidence that refutes it. After all, so far no one has ever been able to produce such a scenario without invoking magic.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2012 12:15 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2012 11:59 AM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 432 (645988)
01-01-2012 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by jar
01-01-2012 9:31 AM


Re: The point of the thread
I for one would love to see a description of a scenario for either of the Biblical Flood stories where there is no scientific evidence that refutes it. After all, so far no one has ever been able to produce such a scenario without invoking magic.

Is there any real difference between magic and made up science? When someone postulates that all of the radioactive elements were contained in the core of the earth and thus no decaying elements were present in the human body before the fall, is that bad science or magic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 01-01-2012 9:31 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 01-01-2012 12:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 211 by edge, posted 01-01-2012 8:33 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 210 of 432 (645990)
01-01-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by NoNukes
01-01-2012 11:59 AM


Re: The point of the thread
It is something that can be checked. There is scientific evidence that refutes such a scenario.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2012 11:59 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021