Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
708 online now:
Dredge, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 703 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,168 Year: 6,280/6,534 Month: 473/650 Week: 11/232 Day: 11/28 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
edge
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 54 of 242 (788560)
08-02-2016 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by saab93f
08-01-2016 1:36 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Can't you see how silly your magical arguments are? When someone presents you problems that reality present, you wave everything off with magic (this time it's magical olive tree that can withstand soggy soil).

What?

You don't have olive trees growing in the Karelian bogs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by saab93f, posted 08-01-2016 1:36 PM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by saab93f, posted 08-02-2016 10:46 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 191 of 242 (789520)
08-16-2016 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by ICANT
08-16-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
That assumption is false.
The sun does not rise in the east.

The sun appears in the east due to the revolution of the earth on it's axis, in relation to the sun.


Thank you for clarifying that.

However, it would still be an assumption that the sun will appear in the east each morning.

At the same time, it is a pretty well supported assumption. Other assumptions maybe not so.

Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.

Well, I would classify that as an assumption. Frankly, it would be a generalization that is based on (as usual) limited data. So are you saying that the Bible has made an assumption? Can you give us the supporting data used in the Bible?

Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today.

So, the Bible actually tells us where North America is?

Does the Bible also tell us that the sky is blue?

So the only problem is how quickly the land mass was divided.

I could think of a lot more questions than that. One such that is receiving attention these days is why oceanic subduction zones start where they are.

How do we know when Pangea existed?

From paleomagnetic reconstructions.

IF the plates have always moved at the same speed Pangea existed about 250 million years ago and began to break up about 150 million years ago.

So, the observation that plates move at a certain speed (i.e., an observation) is trumped by the possibility that they could have moved faster?

Nevertheless, we do have speed measurements based on radiometric dates of the ocean floor, so this is a supported assumption.

The oldest data for the speed of the movement of the plates dates back to 1974.

Actually, no. The ages of the ocean floor and attached islands show show us distance versus time ... that would be speed. Here, for instance, is a diagram of ages for the Hawaiian Islands.

Some plates are moving at higher rates than others.

Yes, and the highest relative velocities are about 20cm/y. There is no evidence for 'catastrophic plate tectonics'.

You only assume it to fit your biblical narrative.

Now just because the plates are moving at certain rates today does not mean they have always moved at those rates.

However, there is no evidence going back to the Triassic (and new evidence suggests longer) that there were huge departures from known rates. For instance, during the Cretaceous, we are pretty certain that rates were somewhat higher, but nothing like the numbers that YECs would like.

The steady movement for 150 million years is an assumption.

Well, that is not one of our assumptions. We know that there are higher rates in the geological record; just nothing like what you desire in you wildest assumptions.

The plates could have been moved to their present location in a nano second and just have not come to a complete stop yet. This is an assumption.

Such a displacement is not even an assumption. It is a fantasy. There are no forces on earth that could do that except magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 2:50 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 08-17-2016 1:56 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 192 of 242 (789521)
08-16-2016 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
08-16-2016 1:30 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Evidence creates facts not assumptions.

Evidence allows us to create supported theories.

The main issue between us is, 'what is valid evidence'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 1:30 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 193 of 242 (789523)
08-16-2016 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by JonF
08-15-2016 2:42 PM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Sometimes scientists assume something currently unavailable to complete an analysis that could lead to interesting investigations. Of course you know nobody would present that analysis without acknowledging and discussing the assumption, and nobody would think that the results of the analysis were established fact.

I might add that sometimes we test our assumptions by using them as premises. That does not mean that we dogmatically accept them as 'facts'. It means that we can devise a test to see if an assumption endures.

Does YEC do that? Does YEC test anything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by JonF, posted 08-15-2016 2:42 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 08-16-2016 10:51 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 222 of 242 (790176)
08-27-2016 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by ICANT
08-26-2016 12:57 AM


Re: Hi 14174Re: Science vs. creation "science"
All water today is not gathered into one place. Neither is it a contiguous body of water.

Here is a list of land locked bodies of water.
💡Names of Landlocked Seas.
🔅Aral Sea
🔅Lake Balkhash
🔅Caspian Sea
🔅Lake Chad
🔅Lake Chilwa
🔅Chott Melrhir
🔅Dead Sea
🔅Lake Eyre
🔅Issyk Kul
🔅Namtso
🔅Sea of Galilee
🔅Great Salt Lake
🔅Qinghai Lake
🔅Salton Sea
🔅Lake Torrens
🔅Lake Turkana
🔅Lake Van

Back up and punt.


Not to mention the Carson Sink and the Humbolt Sink.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2016 12:57 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022