Summations Only

Well no shit. You didn't know what a word meant, how else am I to explain it to you other than semantically?Do you care to address the actual point of my post?

No doubt, but we're talking about his paper that he linked to. Doesn't their study of transgressions imply that there was dry land there?

lol - if they're pre-historic then they wouldn't be around during the recorded history of the Flood.Its so obvious that you're just making up bullshit off the cuff.

Well I went, in Message 205, so far as to link him to this grade school level science project that he could even do in his own home.He didn't even reply so I don't have much hope for him actually going out and finding his own experiments.

How about we just ignore you?I mean, the process is NOT: prove these things that I have just made up as wrong, or I get to assume that they might have happened.Why should we waste that time?

Then your process is the worst one we know of for modeling reality. Your approach can't even get you out of The Matrix. That is, since you cannot prove that you're not in The Matrix, then we get to assume that you are. Have you ever hear of Russel's Teapot?

quote:

---

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872—1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.

---

A scientific approach is much better, as we know because of all the advances that scienc has given us: that is, assume that the evidence that we can find points to a reality that we are experiencing. Follow the evidence where it leads and let it speak for itselt.Your approach, "prove me wrong or I get to assume I'm right", is the worst way to figure things out. You can't even determine if you're just a brain in a jar or not. But I know that the ark story is impossible. The evidence that proves it is impossible is that the Earth has never been covered in water during a time when humans were alive. Then you are calling childish banter, the position that we are not living in The Matrix and that I am not just a brain in a jar. No, sir, that is chidish banter.

Yeah, and then when people do show you the evidence, you make up a bunch of bullshit like 'what if time is compressed', or you could use the equally valid 'maybe we all live in The Matrix'. No, this is in the Science Forum section of this website. In this part, we use scientific evidence. That means that all your what-ifs have zero weight until you provide evidence for them. But by your approach, you can't even disprove that we live in The Matrix. So why should anyone care? Every single person who has posted in this thread believs that an ancient book could be right until proven wrong. Nobody cares if you're impressed. What you have show is that the only way to maintain a belief in The Flud, is to turn a blind eye to the evidence and make up a bunch of ridiculous what-ifs to prop your belief onto. No, that is not an evidenced conclusion, that is something that you made up. You might as well be claiming that we live in The Matrix.

That's a lie. I know the Flood didn't happen as described in the Bible from the evidence that proves that the planet has not been covered in water since humans have existed. And that evidence has nothing to do with radiometric dating.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Well that's just stupid. There were no humans alive at the PT boundary. The Triassic layers hardly even contain mammals, let alone people.

No, it isn't, because there is no sign of humans in either the Permian nor the Triassic layers. But there was a large population of people around before The Flood too. We should find their remains in the layers below the flood layer. But those don't even contain any mammals at all, let alone humans and goats and cities and all that stuff that would be there if the story was true.

Time compression! Which means that, since the the continents were in Pangea-form beforehand, there would have been crustal displacements that occurred so rapidly that there would have been enough energy to boil all the water off the planet.His narrative is utterly ridiculous and simply laughable.

Well, I was being a little hyperbolic... but its utterly ridiculous to think that you can compress all that crustal displacement into a very short amount of time. That idea is deserving of nothing more than sweeping statements. You're the one who thinks that the "mountains" back then were just "hills" because that's what the hebrew word really meant.But anyways, your Flood model stands refuted in the absence of any possibility of humans near the PT boundary.

It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

Okay, this is getting really weird...I can't tell if you are being dishonest, or are just kinda dumb.I remember when you were talking about how the environment can cause mutations in humans, and then you linked to a study about yeast.And now you're talking about radioactivity on Earth, and link to a process that occurs inside stars.I mean, if somebody showed you that they could light a match in their backyard, and said that therefore you should be able to build a fire at the bottom of a lake, how would you respond to that?Wouldn't you just write them off as crazy?